IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rcr/wpaper/05_11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Referencing, Gains-Losses Asymmetry And Non-Linear Sensitivities In Commuter Decisions: One Size Does Not Fit All!

Author

Listed:
  • Amanda Stathopoulos

    (University of Trieste)

  • Stephane Hess

    (University of Leeds)

Abstract

In contrast with expected utility theory, empirical findings indicate that decisionmakers are sensitive to departures from reference points rather than states. Several tests of the reference-dependent preference framework have been carried out in experimental economics, and to a smaller extent in a choice modelling setting, to date. However, these empirical applications have generally focussed on a single behavioural phenomenon using uniform modelling approaches. This paper aims to broaden existing work by presenting a multi-attribute framework, allowing contemporarily for gain-loss asymmetry, non-linearity and testing for several possible reference points. The framework is tested in the context of commuter choices and reveals important gains in model fit and further insights into behaviour compared to standard modelling approaches, including substantial impacts on implied welfare measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Amanda Stathopoulos & Stephane Hess, 2011. "Referencing, Gains-Losses Asymmetry And Non-Linear Sensitivities In Commuter Decisions: One Size Does Not Fit All!," Working Papers 0511, CREI Università degli Studi Roma Tre, revised 2011.
  • Handle: RePEc:rcr:wpaper:05_11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://host.uniroma3.it/centri/crei/pubblicazioni/workingpapers2011/CREI_05_2011.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2011
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Lothlorien Redmond & Patricia Mokhtarian, 2001. "The positive utility of the commute: modeling ideal commute time and relative desired commute amount," Transportation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 179-205, May.
    3. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    4. Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Salomon, Ilan, 2001. "How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 695-719, September.
    5. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C. & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1995. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments versus Contingent Valuation," Staff Paper Series 24126, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    6. Lorenzo Masiero & David Hensher, 2011. "Shift of reference point and implications on behavioral reaction to gains and losses," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 249-271, March.
    7. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    8. Batley, Richard & Dargay, Joyce & Wardman, Mark, 2011. "The impact of lateness and reliability on passenger rail demand," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 61-72, January.
    9. Mandel, Benedikt & Gaudry, Marc & Rothengatter, Werner, 1994. "Linear or nonlinear utility functions in logit models? The impact on German high-speed rail demand forecasts," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 91-101, April.
    10. Páez, Antonio & Whalen, Kate, 2010. "Enjoyment of commute: A comparison of different transportation modes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 537-549, August.
    11. Hess, Stephane, 2008. "Treatment of reference alternatives in stated choice surveys for air travel choice behaviour," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 275-279.
    12. Zhang, Junyi & Timmermans, Harry & Borgers, Aloys & Wang, Donggen, 2004. "Modeling traveler choice behavior using the concepts of relative utility and relative interest," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 215-234, March.
    13. Swait, Joffre, 2001. "A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cutoffs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 903-928, November.
    14. Lucia Rotaris & Romeo Danielis & Igor Sarman & Edoardo Marcucci, 2012. "Testing for nonlinearity in the choice of a freight transport service," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 50, pages 1-4.
    15. De Borger, Bruno & Fosgerau, Mogens, 2008. "The trade-off between money and travel time: A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 101-115, July.
    16. Danielis, Romeo & Marcucci, Edoardo, 2007. "Attribute cut-offs in freight service selection," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 506-515, September.
    17. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    18. John M. Rose & Michiel C. J. Bliemer, 2008. "Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experimental Designs," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(5), pages 587-617, October.
    19. Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Chen, Cynthia, 2004. "TTB or not TTB, that is the question: a review and analysis of the empirical literature on travel time (and money) budgets," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 38(9-10), pages 643-675.
    20. McFadden, Daniel, 1999. "Rationality for Economists?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 73-105, December.
    21. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    22. Hess, Stephane & Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A., 2008. "Asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay estimates in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 847-863, September.
    23. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2009. "Should Reference Alternatives in Pivot Design SC Surveys be Treated Differently?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 297-317, March.
    24. Knetsch, Jack L., 2007. "Biased valuations, damage assessments, and policy choices: The choice of measure matters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 684-689, September.
    25. Schade, J. & Baum, M., 2007. "Reactance or acceptance? Reactions towards the introduction of road pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 41-48, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Choice modeling; discrete choice experiment; reference effects; non-linearity; gain/loss deviations; commuting;

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • R49 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Other

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rcr:wpaper:05_11. 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: (Francesca Vaino). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/crro3it.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.