Advertisement

Transportation

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 549–562 | Cite as

An empirical comparison of travel choice models that capture preferences for compromise alternatives

  • Caspar G. Chorus
  • Michel Bierlaire
Article

Abstract

Compromise alternatives have an intermediate performance on each or most attributes rather than having a poor performance on some attributes and a strong performance on others. The relative popularity of compromise alternatives among decision-makers has been convincingly established in a wide range of decision contexts, while being largely ignored in travel behavior research. We discuss three (travel) choice models that capture a potential preference for compromise alternatives. One approach, which is introduced in this paper, involves the construction of a so-called compromise variable which indicates to what extent (i.e., on how many attributes) a given alternative is a compromise alternative in its choice set. Another approach consists of the recently introduced random regret-model form, where the popularity of compromise alternatives emerges endogenously from the regret minimization-based decision rule. A third approach consists of the contextual concavity model, which is known for favoring compromise alternatives by means of a locally concave utility function. Estimation results on a stated route choice dataset show that, in terms of model fit and predictive ability, the contextual concavity and random regret models appear to perform better than the model that contains an added compromise variable.

Keywords

Compromise alternatives Route-choices Random regret Contextual concavity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Support from The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), in the form of VENI-grant 451.10.001, is gratefully acknowledged by the first author. Comments made by four anonymous reviewers have helped us improve a previous version of this paper.

References

  1. Ben-Akiva, M.E., Swait, J.: The Akaike likelihood ratio index. Transp. Sci. 20(2), 133–136 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bierlaire, M., 2003. BIOGEME: A free package for the estimation of discrete choice models.in: Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss Transportation Research Conference, Ascona, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  3. Bierlaire, M.:An introduction to BIOGEME Version 1.7, biogeme.epfl.ch (2008)Google Scholar
  4. ChoiceMetrics, :Ngene 1.0 user manual and reference guide Sydney, Australia (2009)Google Scholar
  5. Chorus, C.G.: A new model of random regret minimization. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastructure Res. 10(2), 181–196 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. Chorus, C.G., Rose, J.M.:Selecting a date: a matter of regret and compromises. In: Hess, S., Daly, A. (eds.) Choice modelling: The state of the art and the state of practice, Chap. 11. Edward Elgar (2011)Google Scholar
  7. Chorus, C.G.: Random regret minimization: an overview of model properties and empirical evidence. Transp. Rev. 32(1), 75–92 (2012a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chorus, C.G.: Regret theory-based route choices and traffic equilibria. Transportmetrica 8(4), 291–305 (2012b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fonzone, A., Schmöcker, J-D., Ma, J.S., Fukuda, D.:Link based route choice considering risk aversion and regret. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC USA (2012)Google Scholar
  10. Hensher, D.A., Greene, W., Chorus, C.G., in press. Random regret minimisation or random utility maximisation: an exploratory analysis in the context of automobile fuel choice. J. Adv. Transp.Google Scholar
  11. Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., Srinivasan, V.: Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. J. Mark. Res. 41, 237–257 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Müller, H., Kroll, E.B., Vogt, B.: Fact or artifact? Empirical evidence on the robustness of compromise effects in binding and non-binding choice contexts. J. Retail Consumer Serv. 17(5), 441–448 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Simonson, I.: Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. J. Consumer Res. 19, 158–174 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Street, D.J., Burgess, L., Louviere, J.J.: Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. Int. J. Res. Mark. 22, 459–470 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Thiene, M., Boeri, M., Chorus, C.G.: Random regret minimization: exploration of a new choice model for environmental and resource economics. Environ. Resour. Econ. 51(3), 413–429 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wernerfelt, B.: A rational reconstruction of the compromise effect: using market data to infer utilities. J. Consumer Res. 21(4), 627–633 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Transport and Logistics Group, Faculty of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Transport and Mobility Laboratory, School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental EngineeringEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations