IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v52y2024ics1755534524000423.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A novel choice model combining utility maximization and the disjunctive decision rules, application to two case studies

Author

Listed:
  • Cazor, Laurent
  • Watling, David Paul
  • Duncan, Lawrence Christopher
  • Nielsen, Otto Anker
  • Rasmussen, Thomas Kjær

Abstract

Most choice models, e.g. Multinomial Logit (MNL), rely on random utility theory, which assumes that a compensatory utility maximization decision rule explains an individual’s choice behaviour. Research has shown, however, that behaviour is sometimes better explained by non-compensatory decision rules. While some research has used Latent Class Choice Models (LCCMs) to account for multiple decision rules, many of them – such as the disjunctive rule – have yet to be explored. This paper formulates, estimates, and evaluates a LCCM that combines the MNL with a Generalised Random Disjunctive Model (GRDM), a new choice model we develop. Addressing deficiencies of existing disjunctive choice models, the GRDM allows for relative importance between attributes and is insensitive to irrelevant attributes. Unlike most non-compensatory models, it is tractable and incorporates random error terms for capturing unobserved heterogeneity across choice situations. The GRDM can be expressed as a Universal Logit (UL) model, which helps derive welfare metrics such as Marginal Rates of Substitution and elasticities and makes it possible to estimate the model with traditional software packages. The LCCM combining the GRDM and the MNL is estimated in two large-scale case studies: cyclists’ route choice and public transport route choice. Results are compared with other relevant LCCM specifications and the individual choice models, where it is found that the MNL + GRDM LCCM provides the best fit to the data. We also interpret the fitted parameters and calculate the Marginal Rates of Substitution, which align with behavioural expectations.

Suggested Citation

  • Cazor, Laurent & Watling, David Paul & Duncan, Lawrence Christopher & Nielsen, Otto Anker & Rasmussen, Thomas Kjær, 2024. "A novel choice model combining utility maximization and the disjunctive decision rules, application to two case studies," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:52:y:2024:i:c:s1755534524000423
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2024.100510
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534524000423
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2024.100510?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    2. William J McCausland & Clintin Davis-Stober & AAJ Marley & Sanghyuk Park & Nicholas Brown, 2020. "Testing the Random Utility Hypothesis Directly," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(625), pages 183-207.
    3. Chorus, Caspar G., 2012. "Logsums for utility-maximizers and regret-minimizers, and their relation with desirability and satisfaction," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1003-1012.
    4. Fischer, Samuel M., 2020. "Locally optimal routes for route choice sets," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 240-266.
    5. Batley, Richard & Hess, Stephane, 2016. "Testing for regularity and stochastic transitivity using the structural parameter of nested logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 355-376.
    6. Recker, Wilfred W. & Golob, Thomas F., 1979. "A non-compensatory model of transportation behavior based on sequential consideration of attributes," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 269-280, December.
    7. Stephane Hess & Amanda Stathopoulos & Andrew Daly, 2012. "Allowing for heterogeneous decision rules in discrete choice models: an approach and four case studies," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 565-591, May.
    8. Swait, Joffre, 2001. "A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cutoffs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 903-928, November.
    9. Jacob Marschak, 1959. "Binary Choice Constraints on Random Utility Indicators," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 74, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    10. Duncan, Lawrence Christopher & Watling, David Paul & Connors, Richard Dominic & Rasmussen, Thomas Kjær & Nielsen, Otto Anker, 2020. "Path Size Logit route choice models: Issues with current models, a new internally consistent approach, and parameter estimation on a large-scale network with GPS data," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 1-40.
    11. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    12. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    13. Nielsen, Otto Anker & Eltved, Morten & Anderson, Marie Karen & Prato, Carlo Giacomo, 2021. "Relevance of detailed transfer attributes in large-scale multimodal route choice models for metropolitan public transport passengers," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 76-92.
    14. Dekker, Thijs, 2014. "Indifference based value of time measures for Random Regret Minimisation models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 10-20.
    15. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Guevara, Cristian Angelo & Chorus, Caspar G., 2015. "New insights on random regret minimization models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 91-109.
    16. Watling, David Paul & Rasmussen, Thomas Kjær & Prato, Carlo Giacomo & Nielsen, Otto Anker, 2018. "Stochastic user equilibrium with a bounded choice model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 254-280.
    17. Swait, Joffre & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 1987. "Incorporating random constraints in discrete models of choice set generation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 91-102, April.
    18. David Hensher & John Rose & William Greene, 2005. "The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 203-222, May.
    19. Ehrgott, Matthias & Wang, Judith Y.T. & Watling, David P., 2015. "On multi-objective stochastic user equilibrium," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 81(P3), pages 704-717.
    20. Hancock, Thomas O. & Hess, Stephane & Marley, A.A.J. & Choudhury, Charisma F., 2021. "An accumulation of preference: Two alternative dynamic models for understanding transport choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 250-282.
    21. Manski, Charles F & Lerman, Steven R, 1977. "The Estimation of Choice Probabilities from Choice Based Samples," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(8), pages 1977-1988, November.
    22. Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly & Richard Batley, 2018. "Revisiting consistency with random utility maximisation: theory and implications for practical work," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 181-204, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rasmussen, Thomas Kjær & Duncan, Lawrence Christopher & Watling, David Paul & Nielsen, Otto Anker, 2024. "Local detouredness: A new phenomenon for modelling route choice and traffic assignment," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rasmussen, Thomas Kjær & Duncan, Lawrence Christopher & Watling, David Paul & Nielsen, Otto Anker, 2024. "Local detouredness: A new phenomenon for modelling route choice and traffic assignment," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    2. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2018. "The effect of attribute-alternative matrix displays on preferences and processing strategies," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 113-132.
    3. Jourdain, Damien & Lairez, Juliette & Striffler, Bruno & Lundhede, Thomas, 2022. "A choice experiment approach to evaluate maize farmers’ decision-making processes in Lao PDR," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    4. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Chorus, Caspar G., 2018. "Does the decision rule matter for large-scale transport models?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 114(PB), pages 338-353.
    5. Boeri, Marco & Scarpa, Riccardo & Chorus, Caspar G., 2014. "Stated choices and benefit estimates in the context of traffic calming schemes: Utility maximization, regret minimization, or both?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 121-135.
    6. Damien Jourdain & Juliette Lairez & Bruno Striffler & Thomas Lundhede, 2022. "A choice experiment approach to evaluate maize farmers’ decision-making processes in Lao PDR," Post-Print hal-03737618, HAL.
    7. Mahmud, Asif & Gayah, Vikash V. & Paleti, Rajesh, 2022. "A latent choice model to analyze the role of preliminary preferences in shaping observed choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 95-108.
    8. Erlend Dancke Sandorf & Danny Campbell, 2019. "Accommodating satisficing behaviour in stated choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(1), pages 133-162.
    9. Peng Jing & Mengxuan Zhao & Meiling He & Long Chen, 2018. "Travel Mode and Travel Route Choice Behavior Based on Random Regret Minimization: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, April.
    10. Danny Campbell & Seda Erdem, 2015. "Position Bias in Best-worst Scaling Surveys: A Case Study on Trust in Institutions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(2), pages 526-545.
    11. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2022. "Testing for saliency-led choice behavior in discrete choice modeling: An application in the context of preferences towards nuclear energy in Italy," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    12. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Rose, John M. & Chorus, Caspar G., 2018. "On the robustness of efficient experimental designs towards the underlying decision rule," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 50-64.
    13. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2021. "Attribute range effects: Preference anomaly or unexplained variance?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    14. Caspar G. Chorus & Sander Cranenburgh, 2018. "Specification of regret-based models of choice behaviour: formal analyses and experimental design based evidence—commentary," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 247-256, January.
    15. Hancock, Thomas O. & Hess, Stephane & Choudhury, Charisma F., 2018. "Decision field theory: Improvements to current methodology and comparisons with standard choice modelling techniques," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 18-40.
    16. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Dekker, Thijs, 2014. "Random regret minimization for consumer choice modeling: Assessment of empirical evidence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 2428-2436.
    17. Kaye-Blake, William & Abell, Walter L. & Zellman, Eva, 2009. "Respondents’ ignoring of attribute information in a choice modelling survey," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-18.
    18. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    19. Truong, Thuy D. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. (Vic) & Boxall, Peter C., 2015. "Modeling non-compensatory preferences in environmental valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 89-107.
    20. Boeri, Marco & Longo, Alberto, 2017. "The importance of regret minimization in the choice for renewable energy programmes: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 253-260.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:52:y:2024:i:c:s1755534524000423. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.