Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relevance Rule in Adding Up Non-Given Attributes in Travel Stated Choices: A Consideration Under Anchoring Perspective

  • Published:
International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study is among the first studies investigating how non-given attributes are used in deciding stated choices for daily travel under anchoring perspective. Our theoretical work leads us to a conceptual model that non-given attributes are systematically included in the choice making process based on their relevance to the choice decision. The relevant rule for re-packing of the attribute set is activated in a way that the involvement of non-given attributes does not eliminate the influence of given attributes on choices. Notably, more non-given attributes are involved in choice decision when respondents deal with cases that are more difficult to trade-off between given attributes. To obtain empirical supports, a paper-based questionnaire interview was conducted. Findings based on 649 individual responses of travellers in Can Tho city, Vietnam successfully showed that travel time and travel cost significantly influence the stated choice between bus and motorcycle regardless of the involvement of respondents’ travel experiences. In addition, it was observed that all the investigated travel experiences were associated with stated choices in more difficult cases (more efforts to trade-off between travel time and travel cost) while fewer travel experiences were associated with stated choices in less difficult cases (less efforts to trade-off between travel time and travel cost). The positive association between the judgement difficulty based on given attributes and the number of anchors associated with stated choices suggests that the search engine of respondents is task-dependent and it tends to expand its searching scope accordingly to the task difficulty. This implies that the anchoring effect is more complicated in more difficult cases, and that stated scenarios are not equally treated by respondents. As such, any conclusion of stated choices should be made in full awareness of this important phenomenon.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hensher, D.: How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load. J. Appl. Econom. 21(6), 861–878 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Arentze, T., Borgers, A., Timmermans, H., DelMistro, R.: Transport stated choice responses: effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy. Transp. Res. 39E, 229–244 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hess, S.: Impact of unimportant attributes in stated choice surveys. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastructure Res. 14(4), 349–361 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Scarpa, R., Thiene, M., Hensher, D.: Monitoring choice task attribute attendance in nonmarket valuation of multiple park management services: Does it matter? Land. Econ. 86, 817–839 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell, D., Hensher, D.A., Scarpa, R.: Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification. J. Environ. Planning Manage. 54(8), 1061–1076 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hensher, D.A.: Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay. Transp. Res. Part. B Methodol. 44(6), 735–752 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hess, S., Stathopoulos, A., Campbell, D., O’Neill, V., Caussade, S.: It’s not that I don’t care, I just don’t care very much: confounding between attribute nonattendance and taste heterogeneity. Transportation. 40(3), 583–607 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Collins, A.T., Rose, J.M., Hensher, D.A.: Specification issues in a generalised random parameters attribute nonattendance model. Transp. Res. Part. B. 56, 234–253 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kløjgaard, M.E.: Designing a stated choice experiment: the value of a qualitative process. J. Choice Modeling. 5(2), 1–18 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Coast, J., Horrocks, S.: Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy. 12(1), 25–30 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoang-Tung, N., Kubota, H.: Application of attitude theory for identifying the effects of non-attendance attributes in stated choice surveys. Travel Behav. Soc. Vol. 12, 64–71 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Conlisk, J.: Why bounded rationality? J. Econ. Lit. 34(2), 669–700 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jager, W.: Breaking bad habits: a dynamical perspective on habit formation and change. In: Human Decision-Making and Environmental Perception: Understanding and Assisting Human Decision-Making in Real Life Settings. Emerald Group Publishing (2003)

  14. Mahmassani, H., Liu, Y.: Dynamics of commuting decision behaviour under advanced traveller information systems. Transp. Res. Part C. 7(2–3), 91–107 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Di, X., Liu, H.X.: Boundedly rational route choice behaviour: A review of models and methodologies. Transp. Res. Part B. 85, 142–179 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Simon, H.A.: Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol. Rev. 63, 129–138 (1956)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E., Blankenship, K.L., Detweiler-Bedell, B.: Elaboration and numerical anchoring: implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making. J. Consumer Psychol. 20, 5–16 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 185, 1124–1131 (1974)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Epley, N., Gilovich, T.: Putting adjustment back into the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychol. Sci. 12, 391–396 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., Strack, F.: Playing dice with criminal sentences: the influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32, 188–200 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E., Detweiler-Bedell, B., Jarvis, W.B.G.: Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 37, 62–69 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Englich, B., Soder, K.: Moody experts – how mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring. Judgmental and Decision Making. 4, 41–50 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wilson, T.D., Houston, C.E., Etling, K.M., Brekke, N.: A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 125, 387–402 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Eroglu, C., Croxton, K.L.: Biases in judgmental adjustments of statistical forecasts: the role of individual differences. Int. J. Forecast. 26, 116–133 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Blankenship, K.L., Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E., Detweiler-Bedell, B., Macy, C.L.: Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: an attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44, 1465–1476 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chapman, G.B., Johnson, E.J.: The limits of anchoring. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 7, 223–242 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Brownstone, D., Bunch, D.S., Train, K.E.: Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles. Transp. Res. Part. B. 34(5), 315–338 (2000). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(99)00031-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dissanayake, D., Morikawa, T.: A combined RP / SP nested logit model of vehicle ownership, mode choice and trip chaining to investigate household travel behavior in developing countries. 82nd Annu.Meet. Transp. Res. Board. Transportation Research Board(2003)

  29. Sheeran, P.: Intention—behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 12(1), 1–36 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Carrington, M.J., Neville, B.A., Whitwell, G.J.: Lost in translation: Exploring the ethical consumer intention–behavior gap. J. Bus. Res. 67(1), 2759–2767 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gabaix, X., Laibson, D., Moloche, G., Weinberg, S.: “The Allocation of Attention: Theory and Evidence,” Department of Economics Working Paper No. 03–31, MIT (2003)

  32. Hensher, D.A.: How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load. J. Appl. Econom. 21(6), 861–878 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Cameron, T.A., DeShazo., J.A.: Differential Attention to Attributes in Utility-Theoretic Choice Models. J. Choice modelling. 3(3), 73–115 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cameron, T., Ann, Englin, J.: Respondent experience and contingent valuation of environmental goods. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 33, 296–313 (1997)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. LaRiviere, J., Czajkowski, M., Hanley, N., Aanesen, M.: Jannike Falk-Petersen, and Dugald Tinch: The value of familiarity: Effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to pay for public goods. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 68, 376–389 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. McFadden, D.: The New Science of Pleasure: Consumer Behavior and the Measurement of Well-Being. In Handbook of choice modelling, eds. Stephane Hess and Andew Daly, 7–48. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar (2014)

  37. Ryan, M., Watson, V., Entwistle, V.: Rationalising the ‘irrational’: A think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Health Econ. 18(3), 321–336 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Scarpa, R., Zanoli, R., Bruschi, V., Naspetti, S.: Inferred and stated attribute non-attendance in food choice experiments. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 95(1), 165–180 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lagarde, M.: Investigating attribute non-attendance and its consequences in choice experiments with latent class models. Health Econ. 22(5), 554–567 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Marti, M.W., Wissler, R.L.: Be careful what you ask for: the effects of anchors on personal injury damages awards. J. Experimental Psychology: Appl. 6, 91–103 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Fujii, S., Garling, T.: Application of attitude theory for improved predictive accuracy of stated preference methods in travel demand analysis. Transp. Res. Part A. 37, 389–402 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Molin, E.J.E., Timmermans, H.J.P., VonkNoordegraaf, D.M., Mol, F.: Competition Among Egress Transport Modes: A Stated Choice Model Incorporating Availability-Effects. Transportation Research Records, No. 21–28 (2006). (1972)

  43. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 47, 263–292 (1979)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Furnham, A., Boo, H.C.: A literature review of the anchoring effect. J. Socio-Econ. 40, 35–42 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Strack, F., Mussweiler, T.: Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: mechanisms of selective accessibility. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 73, 437–446 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Joseph, M., Hilbe: Logistic Regression Models. CRC Press, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Taylor & Francis Group (2009)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Mussweiler, T., Strack, F.: Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: a selective accessibility model. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 35, 136–164 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Johnson, E.J., Schkade, D.A.: Bias in utility assessments: Further evidence and explanations. Manage. Sci. 35, 406–424 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Röseler, L., Schütz, A., Baumeister, R.F., Starker, U.: Does ego depletion reduce judgment adjustment for both internally and externally generated anchors? J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 87, 103942 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Vreeswijk, J., Thomas, T., Berkum, E.V., Arem, B.V.: Drivers’ Perception of Route Alternatives as Indicator for the Indifference Band. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2383, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 10–17 (2013)

  51. Jang, S., Rasouli, S., Timmermans, H.: Tolerance and Indifference Bands in Regret–Rejoice Choice Models: Extension to Market Segmentation in the Context of Mode Choice Behavior. Transp. Res. Rec J. Transp. Res. Board. 2672, 23–34 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Coombs, C.H., Dawes, R.M., Tversky, A.: Mathematical Psychology: An Elementary Introduction. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA (1970)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The data collection of this study was implemented under the project of Master Plan of Public Transport Network by Buses in Can Tho city to 2020 vision to 2030, funded by The World Bank.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Construction Management, University of Transport and Communications, 1 (No.3, Cau Giay Street, Lang Thuong, Dong Da District, Hanoi, Viet Nam

    Nguyen Hoang-Tung

Authors
  1. Nguyen Hoang-Tung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nguyen Hoang-Tung.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoang-Tung, N. Relevance Rule in Adding Up Non-Given Attributes in Travel Stated Choices: A Consideration Under Anchoring Perspective. Int. J. ITS Res. 20, 560–571 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13177-022-00309-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13177-022-00309-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation