Parameter transfer of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: Implications for willingness to pay

Transportation

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 473-490

  Hensher, David A ^a   Layton, David ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Error components; Focal attribute; Information processing; Mixed logit; Parameter transfer; Stated choice designs; Thresholds; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ATTRIBUTE INFORMATION; ERROR COMPONENTS; MIXED LOGIT; STATED CHOICE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

DATA PROCESSING;

DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ERROR ANALYSIS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LOGIT ANALYSIS; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR; TRAVEL TIME; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 77953026940     PISSN: 00494488     EISSN: 15729435     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11116-010-9260-6     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bertini, M., Watieu, L.: The Framing of Price Format. London Business School, London (2006).
2. Cantillo, V., de Ortúzar, J. D.: A semi-compensatory discrete choice model with explicit attribute thresholds of perception'. Transp. Res. 39B, 641-657 (2005).
3. Cantillo, V., Heydecker, B., de Dios Ortuzar, J.: A discrete choice model incorporating thresholds for perception in attribute values. Transp. Res. B 40(9), 807-825 (2006).
4. Caparros, A., Oviedo, J. L., Campos, P.: Would you choose your preferred option? Comparing choice and recoded ranking experiments. Am. J. Agric. Res. Econ. 90, 843-855 (2008).
5. Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., Lampi, E.: Ignoring attributes in choice experiments. In: Proceedings EAERE Conference, 25-28 June 2008, Gothenburg, Sweden (2008).
6. DeShazo, J. R., Fermo, G.: Implications of Rationally-Adaptive Pre-Choice Behaviour for the Design and Estimation Of Choice Models. Working Paper. School of Public Policy and Social Research, University of California, Los Angeles (2004).
7. Fiebig, D., Keane, M., Louviere, J., Wasi, N.: The Generalized Multinomial Logit: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity, Censoc WP09002. University of Technology, Sydney (2009).
8. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., Kahneman, D. (eds.): Heuristics and Biases-The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002).
9. Greene, W. H., Hensher, D. A.: Ordered choice, heterogeneity, and attribute processing, J. Trans. Econ. Policy (2010) (in press).
10. Hensher, D. A.: Measurement of the valuation of travel time savings. J. Trans. Econ. Policy 35(1), 71-98 (2001).
11. Hensher, D. A.: Joint estimation of process and outcome in choice experiments and implications for willingness to pay. J. Trans. Econ. Policy 42(2), 297-322 (2008).
12. Hensher, D. A.: Attribute processing, heuristics and preference construction in choice analysis. In: Hess, S., Daly, A. (eds.) Choice Modelling, pp. 35-68. Emerald Press, UK (2010).
13. Hensher, D. A. and Greene, W. H.: Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: a latent class specification. Empir. Econ. (published online) (2009). doi: 10. 1007/s00181-009-0310-x.
14. Hensher, D. A., Rose, J.: Simplifying choice through attribute preservation or non-attendance: implications for willingness to pay. Transp. Res. E 45, 583-590 (2009).
15. Hess, S., Hensher, D.: Using conditioning on observed choices to retrieve individual-specific attribute processing strategies. Trans. Res. B (2009).
16. Hess, S., Rose J. M.: A latent class approach to modelling heterogeneous information processing strategies in SP studies. Paper presented at the Oslo workshop on valuation methods in transport planning, Oslo (2007).
17. Holmes, T., Boyle, K.: Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based stated-preference valuation questions. Land Econ 81, 114-126 (2005).
18. Kahnemann, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47(2), 263-291 (1979).
19. Kanninen, B. J.: Optimal design for multinomial choice experiments. J. Market. Res. 39(2), 214-217 (2002).
20. Kessel, R., Goos, P., Vandebroek, M.: Comparing algorithms and criteria for designing bayesian conjoint choice experiments. J. Market. Res. 43(3), 409-419 (2006).
21. Layton, D., Hensher, D. A.: Aggregation of common-metric attributes in preference revelation in choice experiments and implications for willingness to pay. Trans. Res. D (2009).
22. Puckett, S. M., Hensher, D. A.: The role of attribute processing strategies in estimating the preferences of road freight stakeholders under variable road user charges. Transp. Res. E 44, 379-395 (2008).
23. Rose, J. M., Bliemer, M. C. J.: Stated preference experimental design strategies. In: Hensher, D. A., Button, K. (eds.) Transport Modelling, Second Edition, Handbooks in Transport, Vol. 1, Chap. 8. Elsevier Science, Oxford (2007).
24. Rose, J. M., Bliemer, M. C., Hensher, D. A., Collins, A. T.: Designing Efficient Stated Choice Experiments in the Presence of Reference Alternatives. Transp. Res. B 42(4), 395-406 (2008).
25. Sandor, Z., Wedel, M.: Profile construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models. Marketing Science 21(4), 455-475 (2002).
26. Scarpa, R., Gilbride, T., Campbell, D., Hensher, D. A.: Modeling attribute non-attendence in choice experiments: does it matter? Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 36(2), 151-174 (2009). http://dx. doi. org/10. 1093/erae/jbp012.
27. Scarpa, R., Thiene, M., Hensher, D. A.: Monitoring choice task attribute attendance in non-market valuation of multiple park management services: does it matter? Land Econ (2009).
28. Starmer, C.: Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. J. Econ. Lit. XXXVIII, 332-382 (2000).
29. Starmer, C., Sugden, R.: Testing for juxtaposition and event splitting effects. J. Risk Uncertain. 6, 235-254 (1993).
30. Thomas, M., Morwitz, V.: Heuristics in numerical cognition: implications for pricing. In: Vithala Rao (ed.) Handbook of Research in Pricing, pp. 132-149. Edward Elgar, UK (2009).
31. Train, K.: Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009).
32. Train, K. and Revelt, D.: Customer-Specific Taste Parameters and Mixed Logit. Working paper. Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley (2000). http://elsa. berkeley. edu/wp/train0999. pdf.