Accounting for Preference and Scale Heterogeneity in Establishing Whether it Matters Who is Interviewed to Reveal Household Automobile Purchase Preferences

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 1-22

  Hensher, David A ^a   Beck, Matthew J ^a   Rose, John M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Automobile choice; Direct elasticities; Individual and group preferences; Internet survey; Stated choice experiment; Vehicle emission charges

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; VEHICLES;

DIRECT ELASTICITIES; INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP PREFERENCES; INTERNET SURVEY; STATED CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; VEHICLE EMISSION;

AUTOMOBILES;

AUTOMOBILE; DECISION MAKING; EMISSIONS TRADING; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; HETEROGENEITY; HOUSEHOLD SURVEY; LOGIT ANALYSIS; NUMERICAL MODEL; PETROLEUM; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; TRAFFIC EMISSION;

EID: 79955796027     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-010-9420-3     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Arora N, Allenby GM (1999) Measuring the influence of individual preference structures in group decision making. J Mark Res 37(November): 476-487.
2. Arora N (2006) Estimating joint preference: a sub-sampling approach. Int J Res Mark 23: 409-418.
3. Aribarg A, Arora N, Bodur HO (2002) Understanding the role of preference revision and concession in group decisions. J Mark Res 39(August): 336-349.
4. Aribarg A, Arora N, Young Kang M (2009) Predicting joint choice using individual data. Mark Sci. Published online. doi: 10. 1287/mksc. 1090. 0490.
5. Bateman I, Munro A (2005) An experiment on risky choice amongst households. Econ J 115: 176-189.
6. Beck M, Hensher DA, Rose JM (2009) Report of a pilot survey for the automobile choice project. Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Sydney.
7. Beharry N, Hensher D, Scarpa R (2009) An analytical framework for joint vs. separate decisions by couples in choice experiments: the case of coastal water quality in Tobago. Environ Resour Econ Househ Groups Spec Issue 43: 95-117.
8. Bliemer MC, Rose JM (2009) Efficiency and sample size requirements for stated choice experiments. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington DC January.
9. Brewer A, Hensher DA (2000) Distributed work and travel behaviour: the dynamics of interactive agency choices between employers and employees. Transportation 27(1): 117-148.
10. Corfman KP (1991) Perceptions of relative influence: formation and measurement. J Mark Res 28: 125-136.
11. Corfman KP, Lehmann DR (1987) Models of cooperative group decision-making and relative influence. J Consumer Res 14(1): 11-13.
12. Dosman D, Adamowicz W (2006) Combining stated and revealed preference data to construct an empirical examination of intrahousehold bargaining. Rev Househ Econ 4: 15-34.
13. Fiebig D, Keane M, Louviere J, Wasi N (2009) The generalized multinomial logit: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark Sci. Published online before print July 23. doi: 10. 1287/mksc. 1090. 0508.
14. Greene WH, Hensher DA (2010) Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? A comparative assessment of logit models. Transportation 37(3): 413-428.
15. Hensher DA (2002) A systematic assessment of the environmental impacts of transport policy: an end use perspective. Environ Res Econ 22(1-2): 185-217.
16. Hensher DA (2010) Attribute processing, heuristics and preference construction in choice analysis. In: Hess S, Daly A (eds) State-of art and state-of practice in choice modelling. Emerald Press, pp 35-70.
17. Hensher DA, Greene WH (2003) Mixed logit models: state of practice. Transportation 30(2): 133-176.
18. Hensher DA, Puckett SM (2007) Theoretical and conceptual frameworks for studying agent interaction and choice revelation in transportation studies. Int J Transp Econ XXXIV(1): 17-47.
19. Hensher DA, Puckett SM (2008) Power, concession and agreement in freight distribution chains subject to distance-based user charges. Int J Logist Res Appl 11(2): 81-100.
20. Hensher DA, Rose J, Black I (2008) Interactive agency choice in automobile purchase decisions: the role of negotiation in determining equilibrium choice outcomes. J Transp Econ Policy 42(2): 269-296.
21. Hess S, Rose JM, Bain S (2009) Random scale heterogeneity in discrete choice models, mimeo, June 23.
22. Keane M (2006) The generalized logit model: preliminary ideas on a research program. Presentation at Motorola-CenSoC Hong Kong Meeting, October 22, 2006.
23. Krishnamurthi L (1988) Conjoint models of family decision making. Int J Res Mark 5(3): 185-198.
24. Menasco MB, Curry DJ (1989) Utility and choice: an empirical study of wife/husband decision making. J Consumer Res 16(1): 87-97.
25. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ (2008) Stated preference experimental design strategies. In: Hensher DA, Button KJ (eds) Handbook of transport modelling (Chap. 8). Elsevier, Oxford, pp 151-180.
26. Rose JM, Bliemer MC, Hensher, Collins AT (2008) Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transp Res Part B 42(4): 395-406.
27. Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
28. Vermuelen F (2002) Collective household models: principles and main results. J Econ Surv 16(4): 533-564.