Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: A latent class specification

Empirical Economics

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 413-426

  Hensher, David A ^a   Greene, William H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Attribute non attendance; Common metric attributes aggregation; Latent class; Parameter transfer; Stated choice; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ECONOMETRICS; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NUMERICAL MODEL; PARAMETERIZATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 77956882885     PISSN: 03777332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00181-009-0310-x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bertini M, Watieu L (2007) The framing of price format. In: Fitzsimons G, Morwitz V (eds) Advances in consumer research, vol 34. ACR, Duluth MN, pp 405-408.
2. Bonini N, Tentori K, Rumiati R (2004) Contingent application of the cancellation editing operation: the role of semantic relatedness between risky outcomes. J Behav Decis Mak 17: 139-152.
3. Brownstone D, Small K (2005) Valuing time and reliability: assessing the evidence from road pricing demonstrations. Transp Res A 39: 279-293.
4. Cantillo V, Ortúzar JD (2005) A semi-compensatory discrete choice model with explicit attribute thresholds of perception. Transp Res 39: 641-657.
5. Cantillo V, Heydecker B, Ortúzar JD (2006) A discrete choice model incorporating thresholds for perception in attribute values. Transp Res B 40(9): 807-825.
6. Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) (2002) Heuristics and biases-the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
7. Greene WH, Hensher DA (2009) Ordered choice, heterogeneity, and attribute processing. J Transp Econ Policy (in press).
8. Hensher DA (2006) How do respondents handle stated choice experiments? Attribute processing strategies under varying information load. J Appl Econom 21: 861-878.
9. Hensher DA (2008) Joint estimation of process and outcome in choice experiments and implications for willingness to pay. J Transp Econ Policy 42(2): 297-322.
10. Hensher DA (2009) Hypothetical bias, stated choice studies and willingness to pay. Spec Issue Transp Res B (in press).
11. Hensher DA, Greene WH (2003) The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30(2): 133-176.
12. Hensher DA, Layton D (2008) Common-metric attribute parameter transfer and cognitive rationalisation: implications for willingness to pay. Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The University of Sydney, (July).
13. Hensher DA, Rose J (2009) Simplifying choice through attribute preservation or non-attendance: implications for willingness to pay. Transp Res E 45: 583-590.
14. Hensher DA, Rose J, Greene W (2005) The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 32(3): 203-222.
15. Hess S, Rose JM (2007) 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.
16. Hess S, Hensher D (2009) Using conditioning on observed choices to retrieve individual-specific attribute processing strategies. Transp Res B (in press).
17. Houston DA, Sherman SJ (1995) Cancellation and focus: the role of shared and unique features in the choice process. J Exp Soc Psychol 31: 357-378.
18. Isacsson G (2007) The trade off between time and money: is there a difference between real and hypothetical choices? Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Borlange.
19. Kanninen BJ (2002) Optimal design for multinomial choice experiments. J Mark Res 39(2): 214-217.
20. Layton D, Hensher DA (2008) Aggregation of common-metric attributes in preference revelation in choice experiments and implications for willingness to pay. Transp Res D Spec Issue (submitted).
21. Puckett SM, Hensher DA (2008) 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.
22. Puckett SM, Hensher DA (2009) Revealing the extent of process heterogeneity in choice analysis: an empirical assessment. Transp Res A 43(1): 117-126.
23. Roeder K, Lynch K, Nagin D (1999) Modeling uncertainty in latent class membership: a case study in criminology. J Am Stat Assoc 94: 766-776.
24. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ (2007) Stated preference experimental design strategies. In: Hensher DA, Button K (eds) Transport modelling. Handbooks in transport, chap 8, vol 1, 2nd edn. Elsevier Science, Oxford.
25. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ, Hensher DA, Collins AC (2008) Designing efficient stated choice experiments involving respondent based reference alternatives. Transp Res B 42(4): 395-406.
26. Sandor Z, Wedel M (2002) Profile construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models. Mark Sci 21(4): 455-475.
27. Scarpa R, Gilbride T, Campbell D, Hensher DA (2008) Modeling attribute non-attendence in choice experiments: does it matter? Eur Rev Agric Econ (submitted).
28. Starmer C (2000) Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. J Econ Lit XXXVIII: 332-382.
29. Swait J (2001) A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cut-offs. Transp Res B 35(10): 903-928.
30. Thomas M, Morwitz V (2009) Heuristics in numerical cognition: implications for pricing. Handbook of research in pricing. Edward Elgar, UK (in press).