Search results

Choice under risk has a large stochastic (unpredictable) component. This chapter examines five stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk and how they combine with “structural” theories of choice under risk. Stochastic models are substantive theoretical hypotheses that are frequently testable in and of themselves, and also identifying restrictions for hypothesis tests, estimation and prediction. Econometric comparisons suggest that for the purpose of prediction (as opposed to explanation), choices of stochastic models may be far more consequential than choices of structures such as expected utility or rank-dependent utility.

This chapter reviews models of decision-making and choice under conditions of certainty. It allows readers to position the contribution of the other chapters in this book in the historical development of the topic area.

Bounded rationality is defined in terms of a strategy to simplify the decision-making process. Based on this definition, different models are reviewed. These models have assumed that individuals simplify the decision-making process by considering a subset of attributes, and/or a subset of choice alternatives and/or by disregarding small differences between attribute differences.

A body of empirical evidence has accumulated showing that under some circumstances the principle of bounded rationality better explains observed choices than the principle of utility maximization. Differences in predictive performance with utility-maximizing models are however small.

The chapter provides a detailed account of the different models, based on the principle of bounded rationality, that have been suggested over the years in travel behaviour analysis. The potential relevance of these models is articulated, model specifications are discussed and a selection of empirical evidence is presented. Aspects of an agenda of future research are identified.

In previous research (Abou-Zeid et al., 2008), we postulated that people report different levels of travel happiness under routine and nonroutine conditions and supported this hypothesis through an experiment requiring habitual car drivers to switch temporarily to public transportation. This chapter develops a general modeling framework that extends random utility models by using happiness measures as indicators of utility in addition to the standard choice indicators, and applies the framework to modeling happiness and travel mode switching using the data collected in the experiment. The model consists of structural equations for pretreatment (remembered) and posttreatment (decision) utilities and explicitly represents their correlations, and measurement equations expressing the choice and the pretreatment and posttreatment happiness measures as a function of the corresponding utilities. The results of the empirical model are preliminary but support the premise that the extended modeling framework, which includes happiness, will potentially enhance behavioral models based on random utility theory by making them more efficient.

The chapter outlines the principles underlying relative utility models, discusses the results of empirical applications and critically assesses the usefulness of this specification against commonly used random utility models and other context dependence models. It also discusses how relative utility can be viewed as a generalisation of context dependency.

In contrast to the conventional concept of random utility, relative utility assumes that decision-makers derive utility from their choices relative to some threshold(s) or reference points. Relative utility models thus systematically specify the utility against such thresholds or reference points.

Examples in the chapter show that relative utility model perform well in comparison to conventional utility-maximising models in some circumstances.

Examples of relative utility models are rare in transportation research. The chapter shows that several recent models can be viewed as special cases of relative utility models.

This paper reviews the current literature on theoretical and methodological issues in discrete choice experiments, which have been widely used in non-market value analysis, such as elicitation of residents' attitudes toward recreation or biodiversity conservation of forests.

We review the literature, and attribute the possible biases in choice experiments to theoretical and empirical aspects. Particularly, we introduce regret minimization as an alternative to random utility theory and sheds light on incentive compatibility, status quo, attributes non-attendance, cognitive load, experimental design, survey methods, estimation strategies and other issues.

The practitioners should pay attention to many issues when carrying out choice experiments in order to avoid possible biases. Many alternatives in theoretical foundations, experimental designs, estimation strategies and even explanations should be taken into account in practice in order to obtain robust results.

The paper summarizes the recent developments in methodological and empirical issues of choice experiments and points out the pitfalls and future directions both theoretically and empirically.

The ability of a company to achieve excellence in service quality depends on the determination of service attributes and their desired levels. It depends also on the prioritization of service attributes, using appropriate quality improvement indices, in a consistent manner within the constraints of limited resources. There is a need to develop an operational procedure that would prioritize customer service attributes in a simple, inexpensive, and accurate manner. Well‐established instruments that measure service quality, such as SERVQUAL, have conceptualized the linear and symmetric relationship between service quality gaps and overall service quality. This paper investigated the asymmetric and nonlinear nature of this relationship and developed a model to advance utility theory into prioritization at the attribute level as well as at the dimensional level. In the service literature, this is a first attempt to apply utility theory in the prioritization of service attributes to help achieve quality in customer service.