IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-01953581.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimation of Logit and Probit models using best, worst and best-worst choices

Author

Listed:
  • Paolo Delle Site

    (UNICUSANO - University Niccolò Cusano = Università Niccoló Cusano)

  • Karim Kilani

    (LIRSA - Laboratoire interdisciplinaire de recherche en sciences de l'action - CNAM - Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers [CNAM])

  • Valerio Gatta

    (ROMA TRE - Università degli Studi Roma Tre = Roma Tre University)

  • Edoardo Marcucci

    (Molde University College - Molde University College)

  • André de Palma

    (ENS Cachan - École normale supérieure - Cachan)

Abstract

The paper considers models for best, worst and best-worst choice probabilities, that use a single common set of random utilities. Choice probabilities are derived for two distributions of the random terms: i.i.d. extreme value, i.e. Logit, and multivariate normal, i.e. Probit. In Logit, best, worst and best-worst choice probabilities have a closed form. In Probit, worst choice probabilities are simply obtained from best choice probabilities by changing the sign of the systematic utilities. Strict log-concavity of the likelihood, with respect to the coefficients of the systematic utilities, holds, under a mild necessary and sufficient condition of absence of perfect multicollinearity in the matrix of alternative and individual characteristics, for best, worst and best-worst choice probabilities in Logit, and for best and worst choice probabilities in Probit. The assumption of substitutability between best and worst choices is tested with data on mode choice, collected for the assessment of user responses to urban congestion charging policies. The numerical results suggest significantly different preferences between best and worst choices, even accounting for scale differences, in both Logit and Probit models. Worst choice data exhibit coefficient attenuation, less pronounced in Probit than in Logit, and higher mean values of travel time savings with larger confidence intervals.

Suggested Citation

  • Paolo Delle Site & Karim Kilani & Valerio Gatta & Edoardo Marcucci & André de Palma, 2018. "Estimation of Logit and Probit models using best, worst and best-worst choices," Working Papers hal-01953581, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01953581
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01953581
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01953581/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louviere, Jordan J. & Islam, Towhidul, 2008. "A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 903-911, September.
    2. McFadden, Daniel & Ruud, Paul A, 1994. "Estimation by Simulation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(4), pages 591-608, November.
    3. André de Palma & Karim Kilani, 2015. "Ordered choice probabilities in random utility models," Working Papers hal-01130603, HAL.
    4. Dennis Fok & Richard Paap & Bram Van Dijk, 2012. "A Rank‐Ordered Logit Model With Unobserved Heterogeneity In Ranking Capabilities," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 831-846, August.
    5. Anderson, Simon P. & de Palma, Andre, 1999. "Reverse discrete choice models," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 745-764, November.
    6. Matthew J. Beck & John M. Rose & Stephen P. Greaves, 2017. "I can’t believe your attitude: a joint estimation of best worst attitudes and electric vehicle choice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 753-772, July.
    7. Gatta, Valerio & Marcucci, Edoardo & Scaccia, Luisa, 2015. "On finite sample performance of confidence intervals methods for willingness to pay measures," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 169-192.
    8. Alberto Cambini & Laura Martein, 2009. "Generalized Convexity and Optimization," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer, number 978-3-540-70876-6, October.
    9. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Morikawa, Takayuki & Shiroishi, Fumiaki, 1992. "Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 149-164, March.
    10. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    11. Yan, Jin & Yoo, Hong Il, 2014. "The seeming unreliability of rank-ordered data as a consequence of model misspecification," MPRA Paper 56285, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. van Ophem, Hans & Stam, Piet & Van Praag, Bernard M S, 1999. "Multichoice Logit: Modeling Incomplete Preference Rankings of Classical Concerts," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 17(1), pages 117-128, January.
    13. Gopindra Sivakumar Nair & Sebastian Astroza & Chandra R. Bhat & Sara Khoeini & Ram M. Pendyala, 2018. "An application of a rank ordered probit modeling approach to understanding level of interest in autonomous vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1623-1637, November.
    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. Delle Site, Paolo & Kilani, Karim & Gatta, Valerio & Marcucci, Edoardo & de Palma, André, 2019. "Estimation of consistent Logit and Probit models using best, worst and best–worst choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 87-106.
    2. Yan, Jin & Yoo, Hong Il, 2019. "Semiparametric estimation of the random utility model with rank-ordered choice data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 414-438.
    3. José L. Oviedo & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "A Latent Class Nested Logit Model for Rank-Ordered Data with Application to Cork Oak Reforestation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1021-1051, December.
    4. Gopindra Sivakumar Nair & Sebastian Astroza & Chandra R. Bhat & Sara Khoeini & Ram M. Pendyala, 2018. "An application of a rank ordered probit modeling approach to understanding level of interest in autonomous vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1623-1637, November.
    5. Dennis Fok & Richard Paap & Bram Van Dijk, 2012. "A Rank‐Ordered Logit Model With Unobserved Heterogeneity In Ranking Capabilities," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 831-846, August.
    6. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    7. Touza, Julia & Pérez-Alonso, Alicia & Chas-Amil, María L. & Dehnen-Schmutz, Katharina, 2014. "Explaining the rank order of invasive plants by stakeholder groups," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 330-341.
    8. Mondal, Aupal & Bhat, Chandra R., 2022. "A spatial rank-ordered probit model with an application to travel mode choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 374-393.
    9. Marco A. Palma, 2017. "Improving the prediction of ranking data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1681-1710, December.
    10. Christian Wankmüller & Maximilian Kunovjanek & Robert Gennaro Sposato & Gerald Reiner, 2020. "Selecting E-Mobility Transport Solutions for Mountain Rescue Operations," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-19, December.
    11. Barbour, Natalia & Menon, Nikhil & Zhang, Yu & Mannering, Fred, 2019. "Shared automated vehicles: A statistical analysis of consumer use likelihoods and concerns," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 86-93.
    12. Hajivassiliou, Vassilis A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1986. "Classical estimation methods for LDV models using simulation," Handbook of Econometrics, in: R. F. Engle & D. McFadden (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 40, pages 2383-2441, Elsevier.
    13. Anoek Castelein & Dennis Fok & Richard Paap, 2020. "A multinomial and rank-ordered logit model with inter- and intra-individual heteroscedasticity," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-069/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    14. Layton, David F., 2000. "Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 21-36, July.
    15. Ben Aoki-Sherwood & Catherine Bregou & David Liben-Nowell & Kiran Tomlinson & Thomas Zeng, 2024. "Bounding Consideration Probabilities in Consider-Then-Choose Ranking Models," Papers 2401.11016, arXiv.org.
    16. Hong il Yoo, 2012. "The perceived unreliability of rank-ordered data: an econometric origin and implications," Discussion Papers 2012-46, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    17. Dumortier, Jerome & Siddiki, Saba & Carley, Sanya & Cisney, Joshua & Krause, Rachel & Lane, Bradley & Rupp, John & Graham, John, 2015. "Effects of Life Cycle Cost Information Disclosure on the Purchase Decision of Hybrid and Plug-In Vehicles," IU SPEA AgEcon Papers 198643, Indiana University, IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs.
    18. Danielis, Romeo & Scorrano, Mariangela & Giansoldati, Marco & Rotaris, Lucia, 2019. "A meta-analysis of the importance of the driving range in consumers’ preference studies for battery electric vehicles," Working Papers 19_2, SIET Società Italiana di Economia dei Trasporti e della Logistica.
    19. Rajesh Paleti & Peter Vovsha & Gaurav Vyas & Rebekah Anderson & Gregory Giaimo, 2017. "Activity sequencing, location, and formation of individual non-mandatory tours: application to the activity-based models for Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland, OH," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 615-640, May.
    20. Baltas, George & Doyle, Peter, 2001. "Random utility models in marketing research: a survey," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 115-125, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Probit; Congestion charge; Strict log-concavity; Logit; Random utility model; Best-worst choices;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:wpaper:hal-01953581. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.