IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

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

  • Amanda Stathopoulos

    (University of Trieste)

  • Stephane Hess

    (University of Leeds)

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.

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

Paper provided by CREI Università degli Studi Roma Tre in its series Working Papers with number 0511.

as
in new window

Length: 32 pages
Date of creation: 2011
Date of revision: 2011
Handle: RePEc:rcr:wpaper:05_11
Contact details of provider: Postal: Via Ostiense, 161, 00154 ROMA
Phone: 06.57067248
Web page: http://host.uniroma3.it/centri/crei/Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. 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.
  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. 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.
  4. Swait, Joffre, 2001. "A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cutoffs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 903-928, November.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Daniel McFadden, 1998. "Rationality for Economists?," Working Papers 98-09-086, Santa Fe Institute.
  8. Koszegi, Botond & Rabin, Matthew, 2004. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt0w82b6nm, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  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. 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.
  11. Lorenzo Masiero & David A. Hensher, 2010. "Shift of reference point and implications on behavioral reaction to gains and losses," Quaderni della facoltà di Scienze economiche dell'Università di Lugano 1005, USI Università della Svizzera italiana.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2009. "Should Reference Alternatives in Pivot Design SC Surveys be Treated Differently?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 297-317, March.
  17. 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 4.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. Mokhtarian, Patricia & Salomon, Ilan, 2001. "How Derived is the Demand for Travel? Some Conceptual and Measurement Considerations," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt1z26n1r8, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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: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)

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.