IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v47y2013i4p1831-1849.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping leisure shopping trip decision making: validation of the CNET interview protocol

Author

Listed:
  • Tim De Ceunynck
  • Diana Kusumastuti
  • Els Hannes
  • Davy Janssens
  • Geert Wets

Abstract

Qualitative research methods can provide an in-depth understanding of how people come to certain decisions, providing valuable input to ground behavioural assumptions in activity-based travel demand models and to implement high impact policy measures to change travel behaviour. The CNET interview protocol is a semi-structured personal interview method to elicit the mental representation of individuals’ decision making. There is a risk of bias caused by the interviewer’s interpretation of the respondents’ answers. Therefore, the quality of the CNET interview protocol is assessed by evaluating its trustworthiness using intercoder reliability tests. Krippendorff’s alpha is identified as the most appropriate measure. The intercoder reliability is sufficiently high. Consequently, the CNET interview protocol can be considered a valid method to measure and map individuals’ considerations in complex spatio-temporal decision problems. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Tim De Ceunynck & Diana Kusumastuti & Els Hannes & Davy Janssens & Geert Wets, 2013. "Mapping leisure shopping trip decision making: validation of the CNET interview protocol," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1831-1849, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:4:p:1831-1849
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-011-9629-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-011-9629-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-011-9629-4?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. Joseph Henrich, 2001. "In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 73-78, May.
    2. Dellaert, Benedict G.C. & Arentze, Theo A. & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2008. "Shopping context and consumers’ mental representation of complex shopping trip decision problems," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 219-232.
    3. Samuel Bowles & Robert Boyd & Colin Camerer & Ernst Fehr & Herbert Gintis & Joseph Henrich & Richard McElreath, 2001. "In search of homo economicus: Experiments in 15 small-scale societies," Artefactual Field Experiments 00068, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Kroneberg, Clemens, 2006. "The Definition of the Situation and Variable Rationality: The Model of Frame Selection as a General Theory of Action," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 06-05, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    5. Kroneberg, Clemens, 2006. "The definition of the situation and variable rationality : the model of frame selection as a general theory of action," Papers 06-05, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    2. Liqi Zhu & Gerd Gigerenzer & Gang Huangfu, 2013. "Psychological Traces of China's Socio-Economic Reforms in the Ultimatum and Dictator Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-6, August.
    3. Frank Cowell & Marc Fleurbaey & Bertil Tungodden, 2015. "The tyranny puzzle in social preferences: an empirical investigation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 765-792, December.
    4. Ehmke, Mariah & Lusk, Jayson & Tyner, Wallace, 2010. "Multidimensional tests for economic behavior differences across cultures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-45, January.
    5. Kimbrough, E.O. & Vostroknutov, A., 2012. "Rules, rule-following and cooperation," Research Memorandum 053, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    6. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    7. Anastasia Litina, 2016. "Natural land productivity, cooperation and comparative development," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 351-408, December.
    8. Stefan Kohler & European University Institute, 2006. "Inequality Aversion and Stochastic Decision-making: Experimental Evidence from Zimbabwean Villages after Land Reform," Economics Series Working Papers GPRG-WPS-061, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    9. Barr, Jason & Saraceno, Francesco, 2009. "Organization, learning and cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 39-53, May.
    10. Pamela Jakiela & Edward Miguel & Vera Velde, 2015. "You’ve earned it: estimating the impact of human capital on social preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 385-407, September.
    11. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2013. "Experimental methods: Extra-laboratory experiments-extending the reach of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 93-100.
    12. Desai, Raj M. & Olofsgård, Anders, 2019. "Can the poor organize? Public goods and self-help groups in rural India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 33-52.
    13. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1645-1692.
    14. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Cappelen, Cornelius & Tungodden, Bertil, 2018. "Second-best fairness under Limited information: The trade-off between false positives and false negatives," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 18/2018, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    15. Yi, Kang-Oh, 2005. "Quantal-response equilibrium models of the ultimatum bargaining game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 324-348, May.
    16. Dannenberg,Astrid & Martinsson,Peter, 2015. "The effect of nonbinding agreements on cooperation among forest user groups in Nepal and Ethiopia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7325, The World Bank.
    17. Rawadee Jarungrattanapong & Suparee Boonmanunt, 2020. "Collective action and other-regarding behavior: an assessment of games vs reality in Thailand," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 22(4), pages 485-507, October.
    18. Bezin, Emeline & Ponthière, Gregory, 2019. "The tragedy of the commons and socialization: Theory and policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    19. Omar Al-Ubaydli & Daniel Houser & John Nye & Maria Pia Paganelli & Xiaofei Sophia Pan, 2013. "The Causal Effect of Market Priming on Trust: An Experimental Investigation Using Randomized Control," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-8, March.
    20. van Damme, Eric & Binmore, Kenneth G. & Roth, Alvin E. & Samuelson, Larry & Winter, Eyal & Bolton, Gary E. & Ockenfels, Axel & Dufwenberg, Martin & Kirchsteiger, Georg & Gneezy, Uri & Kocher, Martin G, 2014. "How Werner Güth's ultimatum game shaped our understanding of social behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 292-318.

    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:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:4:p:1831-1849. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.