Attribute exclusion strategies in airline choice: Accounting for exogenous information on decision maker processing strategies in models of discrete choice

Transportmetrica

Volumn 8, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 344-360

  Rose, John M ^a   Hensher, David A ^a   Greene, William H ^b   Washington, Simon P ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

behavioural outputs; information processing strategy; stated choice experiment; willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIOURAL OUTPUTS; DECISION MAKERS; DISCRETE CHOICE; ESTIMATION PROCESS; PARAMETER ESTIMATE; STATED CHOICE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

DATA PROCESSING; PARAMETER ESTIMATION;

EXPERIMENTS;

EID: 84865221656     PISSN: 18128602     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/18128602.2010.506897     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Anderson, DA and Wiley, JB. 1992. Efficient choice set designs for estimating cross-effects models. Journal of Marketing Research, 3(4): 357-370.
2. Bunch, D.S., Louviere, J.J., and Anderson, D., 1996. A comparison of experimental design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis with generic-attribute multinomial logit models. Working Paper, Graduate School of Management, University of California, Davis.
3. Burke, RR. 1992. Comparing dynamic consumer choice in real and computer-simulated environments. Journal of Consumer Research, 19: 71-82.
4. Carson, R. 1994. Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters, 5: 351-367.
5. Cattin, P and Wittink, DR. 1982. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a survey. Journal of Marketing, 46(3): 44-53.
6. de Dios Ortúzar, J, Iacobelli, A and Valeze, C. 2000. Estimating demand for a cycle-way network. Transportation Research A, 34(5): 353-373.
7. Greene, W, Hensher, DA and Rose, JM. 2005. "Using classical simulation based estimators to estimate individual willingness to pay values: a mixed logit case study of commuters". In Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics, Edited by: Scarpa, R and Alberini, A. 17-34. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Publisher.
8. Green, PE and Srinivasan, V. 1978. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5(2): 103-123.
9. Green, PE and Srinivasan, V. 1990. Conjoint analysis in marketing research: new developments and directions. Journal of Marketing, 54(4): 3-19.
10. Hensher, D.A., 2001. Measurement of the valuation of travel time savings. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (Special issue in honour of Michael Beesley), 35 (1), 71-98.
11. Hensher, DA. 2004. Accounting for stated choice design dimensionality in willingness to pay for travel time savings. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 38(2): 425-446.
12. Hensher, DA. 2006a. How do respondents process stated choice experiments?-attribute consideration under varying information load. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 21: 861-878.
13. Hensher, DA. 2006b. Towards a method to establish comparable values of travel time savings from stated choice experiments with differing design dimensions. Transportation Research A, 40(10): 829-840.
14. Hensher, D.A., 2010. Attribute processing, heuristics and preference construction in choice analysis. In: S. Hess and A. Daly, eds. Choice modelling, Invitational keynote paper for choice modelling conference, 30 March-1 April 2009 (Linked ARC DP 0770618; 07-09) Synthesis paper. Leeds, UK: Emerald Press.
15. Hensher, DA and Greene, WH. 2003. Mixed logit models: state of practice. Transportation, 30(2): 133-176.
16. Hensher, D.A. and Greene, W.H. (in press) Valuation of travel time savings in WTP and preference space in the presence of taste and scale heterogeneity. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy.
17. Hensher, DA and King, J. 2001. Parking demand and responsiveness to supply, pricing and location in the Sydney central business district. Transportation Research A, 35(3): 177-196.
18. Hensher, DA and Layton, D. 2010. Parameter transfer of common-metric attributes in choice analysis and cognitive rationalisation: implications for willingness to pay. Transportation, 37(3): 473-490.
19. Hensher, DA and Rose, JM. 2007. Development of commuter and non-commuter mode choice models for the assessment of new public transport infrastructure projects: a case study. Transportation Research A, 41(5): 428-433.
20. Hensher, DA and Rose, JM. 2009. Simplifying choice through attribute preservation or non-attendance: implications for willingness to pay. Transportation Research E, 45: 583-590.
21. Hensher, DA, Rose, JM and Greene, WH. 2005. Applied choice analysis: a primer, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Huber, J and Zwerina, K. 1996. The importance of utility balance and efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(3): 307-317.
23. Jou, R. 2001. Modelling the impact of pre-trip information on commuter departure time and route choice. Transportation Research B, 35(10): 887-902.
24. Jovicic, G and Hansen, CO. 2003. A passenger travel demand model for Copenhagen. Transportation Research A, 37(4): 333-349.
25. Kanninen, BJ. 2002. Optimal design for multinomial choice experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(2): 214-217.
26. Kuhfeld, WF, Tobias, RD and Garratt, M. 1994. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(4): 545-557.
27. Lam, S.H. and Xie, F., 2002. Transit path models that use RP and SP data, Transportation Research Record 1779, Paper No. 02-3052.
28. Lazari, AG and Anderson, DA. 1994. Designs of discrete choice experiments for estimating both attribute and availability cross effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(3): 375-383.
29. Louviere, JJ and Timmermans, HJP. 1990. Hierarchical information integration applied to residential choice behaviour. Geographical Analysis, 22: 127-145.
30. Oppewal, H, Louviere, JJ and Timmermans, HJP. 1994. Modeling hierarchical information integration processes with integrated conjoint choice experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 31: 92-105.
31. Peeta, S., Ramos, J.L., and Pasupathy, R., 2000. Content of variable message signs and on-line driver behavior. Transportation Research Record 1725, Paper No. 00-970, 102-103.
32. Richardson, A.J., 2002. Simulation study of estimation of individual specific values of time using an adaptive stated preference Survey. Paper presented at the TRB annual meeting, 2 January 2003, Washington DC, USA: Transportation Research Board, 117-125.
33. Rose, JM and Black, I. 2006. Means matter, but variance matter too: decomposing response latency influences on variance heterogeneity in stated preference experiments. Marketing Letters, 17(4): 295-310.
34. Rose, J.M. and Bliemer, M.C.J., 2007. Stated preference experimental design strategies. In: D.A. Hensher and K. Button, eds. Transport modelling, 2nd ed. Handbooks in Transport. Vol. 1, Oxford: Elsevier Science, 151-180.
35. Rose, JM and Hensher, DA. 2006. "Handling individual specific non-availability of alternatives in respondent's choice sets in the construction of stated choice experiments". In Survey methods, Edited by: Stopher, PR and Stecher, C. 347-371. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
36. Sandor, Z and Wedel, M. 2001. Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers' prior beliefs. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(4): 430-444.
37. Scarpa, R, Thiene, M and Train, K. 2008. Utility in willingness to pay space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(4): 994-1010. (also see Appendix: Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. Available from http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/)
38. Scarpa, R. 2009. Modeling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation: does it matter?. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 36(2): 151-174.
39. Train, K. 2003. Discrete choice methods with simulation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Train, K and Weeks, M. 2005. "Discrete choice models in preference space and willing to-pay space". In Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics, Chapter 1, Edited by: Scarpa, R and Alberini, A. 1-16. Dordrecht: Springer Publisher.
41. Toubia, R, Hauser, JR and Simester, DI. 2004. Polyhedral methods for adaptive choice based conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(1): 116-131.
42. Wang, D., Jiuqun, L., and Timmermans, H.J.P., 2001. Reducing respondent burden, information processing and incomprehensibility in stated preference surveys: principles and properties of paired conjoint analysis. Transportation Research Record No. 1768, 71-78.
43. Wittink, DR and Cattin, P. 1989. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an update. Journal of Marketing, 53(3): 91-96.