An indirect latent informational conformity social influence choice model: Formulation and case study

Transportation Research Part B: Methodological

Volumn 93, Issue , 2016, Pages 75-101

  Maness, Michael ^a   Cirillo, Cinzia ^b  

^a OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Bicycle ownership; Discrete choice; Endogeneity; Latent class; Social equilibrium; Social learning

Indexed keywords

BICYCLES; ELASTICITY;

DISCRETE CHOICE; DISCRETE CHOICE MODELS; ENDOGENEITY; EQUILIBRIUM PROPERTIES; INFORMATION TRANSFERS; LATENT CLASS; SOCIAL INFLUENCE MODEL; SOCIAL LEARNING;

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS;

CLASS; CYCLE TRANSPORT; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; LEARNING; MODELING; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84979524772     PISSN: 01912615     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.trb.2016.07.008     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Abou-Zeid, M., Schmöcker, J.D., Belgiawan, P.F., Fujii, S., Mass effects and mobility decisions. Transp. Lett. 5:3 (2013), 115–130.
2. Axsen, J., Kurani, K.S., Interpersonal influence within car buyers' social networks: Applying five perspectives to plug-in hybrid vehicle drivers. Env. Plann. A 44:5 (2012), 1047–1065.
3. Baltas, G., Saridakis, C., An empirical investigation of the impact of behavioural and psychographic consumer characteristics on car preferences: an integrated model of car type choice. Transp. Res. Part A 54 (2013), 92–110.
4. Bourdeaudhuij, I.D., Teixeira, P.J., Cardon, G., Deforche, B., Environmental and psychosocial correlates of physical activity in Portuguese and Belgian adults. Public Health Nutr. 8:07 (2005), 886–895.
5. Brock, W.A., Durlauf, S.N., Discrete choice with social interactions. Rev. Econ. Stud. 68:2 (2001), 235–260.
6. Cherchi, E., Measuring the effect of social conformity in the preference formation. IATBR 2015-WINDSOR, 2015.
7. Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., Social influence: compliance and conformity. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 55 (2004), 591–621.
8. Dugundji, E.R., Gulyás, L., Sociodynamic discrete choice on networks in space: Impacts of agent heterogeneity on emergent outcomes. Env. Plann. B 35:6 (2008), 1028–1054.
9. Dugundji, E.R., Gulyás, L., Sociodynamic Discrete Choice Applied To Travel Demand: Multi-Agent Based Simulation And Issues In Estimation. FedCSIS, 2012, 1247–1254.
10. Dugundji, E.R., Gulyás, L., Structure and emergence in a nested logit model with social and spatial interactions. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 19:2 (2013), 151–203.
11. Dugundji, E.R., Walker, J.L., Discrete choice with social and spatial network interdependencies: an empirical example using mixed generalized extreme value models with field and panel effects. Transp. Res. Rec. 1921 (2005), 70–78.
12. Durlauf, S.N., Ioannides, Y.M., Social interactions. Ann. Rev. Econ. 2 (2010), 451–478.
13. Easley, D., Kleinberg, J., Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning About a Highly Connected World. 2010, Cambridge University Press.
14. Federal Highway Administration. (2005). 2001 NHTS (4.0) [Data files and codebook]. Retrieved from http://nhts.ornl.gov/download.shtml.
15. Forgas, J.P., Williams, K.D., Social influence: Introduction and overview. Forgas, J.P., Williams, K.D., (eds.) Social influence – Direct and Indirect Processes, 2001, Psychology Press-Taylor & Francis Group, Philadelphia, 3–24.
16. Fukuda, D., Morichi, S., Incorporating aggregate behaviour in an individual's discrete choice: an application to analyzing illegal bicycle parking behaviour. Transp. Res. Part A 41:4 (2007), 313–325.
17. Gaker, D., Zheng, Y., Walker, J.L., Experimental economics in transportation. Transp. Res. Rec. 2156 (2010), 47–55.
18. Goetzke, F., Andrade, P.M., Walkability as a summary measure in a spatially autoregressive mode choice model: an instrumental variable approach. Páez, A., Buliung, R.N., Gallo, J., Dall'erba, S., (eds.) Progress in Spatial Analysis: Methods and Applications, 2010, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 217–229.
19. Goetzke, F., Rave, T., Bicycle use in Germany: explaining differences between municipalities with social network effects. Urban Stud. 48:2 (2011), 427–437.
20. Goetzke, F., Weinberger, R., Separating contextual from endogenous effects in automobile ownership models. Env. Plann. A, 44(5), 2012, 1032.
21. Grinblatt, M., Keloharju, M., Ikäheimo, S., Social influence and consumption: Evidence from the automobile purchases of neighbors. Rev. Econ. Stat. 90:4 (2008), 735–753.
22. Guevara-Cue, C.A., Endogeneity and Sampling of Alternatives in Spatial Choice Models., 2010, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Ph.D. dissertation.
23. Guevara Cue, C.A., Lucic, P.P.N., Detection of weak instruments when correcting for endogeneity in binary logit models. IATBR 2015-WINDSOR, 2015.
24. Handy, S., Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., Self-selection in the relationship between the built environment and walking: empirical evidence from Northern California. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 72:1 (2006), 55–74.
25. Handy, S.L., Xing, Y., Buehler, T.J., Factors associated with bicycle ownership and use: a study of six small US cities. Transportation 37:6 (2010), 967–985.
26. Hahn, J., Hausman, J., Weak instruments: Diagnosis and cures in empirical econometrics. Am. Econ. Rev. 93:2 (2003), 118–125.
27. Henningsen, A., Toomet, O., maxLik: a package for maximum likelihood estimation in R. Comput. Stat. 26:3 (2011), 443–458.
28. Hess, S., Latent class structures: taste heterogeneity and beyond. Hess, H., Daly, A., (eds.) Handbook of Choice Modelling, 2014, Edward Elgar, Glos, UK, 311–329.
29. Hess, S., Ben-Akiva, M., Gopinath, D., Walker, J., Advantages of Latent Class Over Continuous Mixture of Logit Models. 2011, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds Working paper.
30. Kim, J.H., Kim, K.S., The role of sensation seeking, perceived peer pressure, and harmful alcohol use in riding with an alcohol-impaired driver. Acc. Anal. Prev. 48 (2012), 326–334.
31. Kuwano, M., Chikaraishi, M., Fujiwara, A., An analysis of personal mobility promoting factors considering the social network in old Newtown. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 9, 2013.
32. Leenders, R.T.A.J., Modeling social influence though network autocorrelation: constructing the weight matrix. Soc. Netw. 24 (2002), 21–47.
33. Maness, M., Bicycle ownership in the United States: Empirical analysis of regional differences. Transportation Research Board 91st Annual Meeting, Washington: Transportation Research Board, 2012 Retrieved from http://amonline.trb.org/.
34. Maness, M., Cirillo, C., Dugundji, E.R., Generalized behavioral framework for choice models of social influence: Behavioral and data concerns in travel behavior. J. Transp. Geogr. 46 (2015), 137–150.
35. Manski, C.F., Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. Rev. Econ. Stud. 60:3 (1993), 531–542.
36. Pike, S., Travel mode choice and social and spatial reference groups. Transp. Res. Rec. 2412 (2014), 75–81.
37. Pike, S., Endogeneity in Social Influence and Transportation Mode Choice Using Ego Networks. Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting, Washington: Transportation Research Board, 2015 Retrieved from http://amonline.trb.org.
38. Pinjari, A., Eluru, N., Bhat, C., Pendyala, R., Spissu, E., Joint model of choice of residential neighborhood and bicycle ownership: accounting for self-selection and unobserved heterogeneity. Transp. Res. Rec. 2082 (2008), 17–26.
39. Rasouli, S., Timmermans, H., Influence of social networks on latent choice of electric cars: a mixed logit specification using experimental design data. Netw. Spat. Econ., 2013, 1–32.
40. Rivers, D., Vuong, Q.H., Limited information estimators and exogeneity tests for simultaneous probit models. J. Econ. 39:3 (1988), 347–366.
41. Rogers, E.M., Diffusion of Innovations. fourth ed., 2010, Simon and Schuster, New York.
42. Sadri, A.M., Lee, S., Ukkusuri, S.V., Modeling Social Network Influence on Joint Trip Frequency for Regular Activity Travel Decisions. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board(2495), 2015, 83–93.
43. Sener, I., Eluru, N., Bhat, C., Who are bicyclists? Why and how much are they bicycling?. Transp. Res. Rec.(2134), 2009, 63–72.
44. Sherwin, H., Chatterjee, K., Jain, J., An exploration of the importance of social influence in the decision to start bicycling in England. Transp. Res. Part A 68 (2014), 32–45.
45. Stock, J.H., Wright, J.H., Yogo, M., A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 20:4 (2002), 518–529.
46. Train, K.E., Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. 2009, Cambridge University Press, New York.
47. Walker, J.L., Ehlers, E., Banerjee, I., Dugundji, E.R., Correcting for endogeneity in behavioural choice models with social influence variables. Transp. Res. Part A 45:4 (2011), 362–374.
48. Wang, C.H., Akar, G., Guldmann, J.M., Do your neighbors affect your bicycling choice? A spatial probit model for bicycling to The Ohio State University. J. Transp. Geogr. 42 (2015), 122–130.
49. Weinberger, R., Goetzke, F., Unpacking preference: How previous experience affects auto ownership in the United States. Urban Stud. 47:10 (2010), 2111–2128.
50. Wilton, R.D., Páez, A., Scott, D.M., Why do you care what other people think? A qualitative investigation of social influence and telecommuting. Transp. Res. Part A 45:4 (2011), 269–282.
51. Wooldridge, J.M., Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. 2010, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
52. Wu, L., Zhang, J., Chikaraishi, M., Representing the influence of multiple social interactions on monthly tourism participation behavior. Tourism Manage. 36 (2013), 480–489.