Shift of reference point and implications on behavioral reaction to gains and losses

Transportation

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 249-271

  Masiero, Lorenzo ^a,b   Hensher, David A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LUGANO   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Freight choice; Gains and losses; Reference alternative; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CIVIL ENGINEERING; TRANSPORTATION;

DISCRETE CHOICE MODELS; FREIGHT CHOICE; INDIVIDUAL DECISION MAKING; REFERENCE ALTERNATIVE; REFERENCE POINTS; STATED CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

DECISION MAKING;

DECISION MAKING; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; FREIGHT TRANSPORT; NUMERICAL MODEL; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 79951813392     PISSN: 00494488     EISSN: 15729435     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11116-010-9302-0     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Arkes, H. R., Hirshleifer, D., Jiang, D., Lim, S.: Reference point adaptation: tests in the domain of security trading. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 105, 67-81 (2008).
2. Bateman, I. J., Brett, D. H., Andrew, J. P., Simon J.: Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. Paper selected for presentation at the international choice modelling conference 2009, Leeds (2009).
3. Bateman, I., Munro, A., Rhodes, B., Starmer, C., Sugden, R.: A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Q. J. Econ. 112, 479-505 (1997).
4. Ben-Akiva, M., Bradley, M., Morikawa, T., Benjamin, J., Novak, T., Oppewal, H., Rao, V.: Combining revealed and stated preferences data. Mark. Lett. 5(4), 335-349 (1994).
5. Benartzi, S., Thaler, R. H.: Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Q. J. Econ. 110(1), 73-92 (1995).
6. Bhat, C. R., Castelar, S.: A unified mixed logit framework for modeling revealed and stated preferences: formulation and application to congestion pricing analysis in the San Francisco Bay area. Transp. Res. B 36, 577-669 (2002).
7. Bolis, S., Maggi, R.: Logistics strategy and transport service choices-an adaptive stated preference experiment. Growth Change 34(4) (2003).
8. Brownstone, D., Bunch, D. S., Train, K.: Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles. Transp. Res. B 34, 315-338 (2000).
9. Camerer, C., Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., Thaler, R. H.: Labor supply of New York City cabdrivers: one day at time. Q. J. Econ. 112(2), 407-442 (1997).
10. Chiou, L., Walker, J. L.: Masking identification of discrete choice models under simulation methods. J. Econom. 141, 683-703 (2007).
11. Danielis, R., Marcucci, E., Rotaris, L.: Logistics managers' stated preferences for freight service attributes. Transp. Res. E 41(3), 201-215 (2005).
12. De Borger, B., Fosgerau, M.: The trade-off between money and travel time: a test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. J. Urban Econ. 64, 101-115 (2008).
13. Hensher, D. A.: Measurement of the valuation of travel time savings. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 35(1), 71-98 (2001).
14. Hensher, D. A.: Empirical approaches to combining revealed and stated preference data: some recent developments with reference to urban mode choice. Res. Transp. Econ. 23, 23-29 (2008).
15. Hensher, D. A., Bradley, M.: Using stated response data to enrich revealed preference discrete choice models. Mark. Lett. 4(2), 139-152 (1993).
16. Hensher, D. A., Collins, A.: Interrogation of responses to stated choice experiments: is there sense in what respondents tell us? A closer look at what respondents choose in stated choice experiments. Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies (ITLS), University of Sydney, (2010).
17. Hensher, D. A., Greene, W. H.: Valuation of travel time Savings in WTP and preference space in the presence of taste and scale heterogeneity. J. Transp. Econ. Policy (2010, in press).
18. Hensher, D. A., Greene, W. H.: Mixed logit models: state of practice. Transportation 30(2), 133-176 (2003).
19. Hess, S., Rose, J. M.: Should reference alternatives in pivot design SC surveys be treated differently? In: Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, DC (2009).
20. Hess, S., Rose, J. M., Hensher, D. A.: Asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay estimates in discrete choice models. Transp. Res. E 44(5), 847-863 (2008).
21. Hjorth, K., Fosgerau, M.: Determinants of the degree of loss aversion. Paper selected for presentation at the international choice modelling conference 2009, Leeds (2009).
22. Horowitz, J., McConnell, K. E.: A review of WTA-WTP studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 44, 426-447 (2002).
23. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2), 263-291 (1979).
24. Lanz, B., Provins, A., Bateman, I., Scarpa, R., Willis, K., Ozdemiroglu, E.: Investigating willingness to pay-willingness to accept asymmetry in choice experiments. Paper selected for presentation at the international choice modelling conference 2009, Leeds (2009).
25. Maggi, R., Masiero, L., Baruffini, M., Thüring M.: Evaluation of the optimal resilience for vulnerable infrastructure networks. An interdisciplinary pilot study on the transalpine transportation corridors. Swiss National Science Foundation, NRP 54 "Sustainable Development of the Built Environment", Project 405 440, Final Scientific Report (2009).
26. Maggi, R., Rudel, R.: The value of quality attributes in freight transport: evidence from an SP-experiment in Switzerland. In: Ben-Akiva, M. E., Meersman, H., van de Voorde, E. (eds.) Recent Developments in Transport Modelling. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK (2008).
27. Masiero, L., Hensher, D. A.: Analyzing loss aversion and diminishing sensitivity in a freight transport stated choice experiment. Transp. Res. A 44, 349-358 (2010).
28. Masiero, L., Maggi, R.: Estimation of indirect cost and evaluation of protective measures for infrastructure vulnerability: a case study on the transalpine transport corridor. Istituto Ricerche Economiche, University of Lugano, Lugano (2009).
29. McFadden, D.: Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, P. (ed.) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York (1974).
30. Rose, J. M., Masiero, L.: A comparison of prospect theory in WTP and preference space. Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Sydney (2009).
31. Rose, J. M., Bliemer, M. C. J., 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).
32. Rowe, R. D., D'Arge, R. C., Brookshire, D. S.: An experiment on the economic value of visibility. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 7, 1-19 (1980).
33. Samuelson, W., Zeckhauser, R.: Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk Uncertain. 1, 7-59 (1988).
34. Schwartz, A., Goldberg, J., Hazen, G.: Prospect theory, reference points, and health decisions. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 3(2), 174-180 (2008).
35. Shea, J.: Union contracts and the life-cycle/permanent-income hypothesis. Am. Econ. Rev. 85, 186-200 (1995).
36. Swait, J., Louviere, J. J.: The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J. Mark. Res. 30(3), 305-314 (1993).
37. Train, K.: Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003).
38. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Q. J. Econ. 106, 1039-1061 (1991).
39. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5, 297-323 (1992).
40. Zamparini, L., Reggiani, A.: The value of travel time in passenger and freight transport: An overview. In: van Geenhuizen, M., Reggiani, A., Rietveld, P. (eds.) Policy Analysis of Transport Networks. Ashgate, Aldershot (2007).