Transportation

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 745–763 | Cite as

Heterogeneity assumptions in the specification of bargaining models: a study of household level trade-offs between commuting time and salary

Article

Abstract

With many real world decisions being made in conjunction with other decision makers, or single agent decisions having an influence on other members of the decision maker’s immediate entourage, there is strong interest in studying the relative weight assigned to different agents in such contexts. In the present paper, we focus on the case of one member of a two person household being asked to make choices affecting the travel time and salary of both members. We highlight the presence of significant heterogeneity across individuals not just in their underlying sensitivities, but also in the relative weight they assign to their partner, and show how this weight varies across attributes. This is in contrast to existing work which uses weights assigned to individual agents at the level of the overall utility rather than for individual attributes. We also show clear evidence of a risk of confounding between heterogeneity in marginal sensitivities and heterogeneity in the weights assigned to each member. We show how this can lead to misleading model results, and argue that this may also explain past results showing bargaining or weight parameters outside the usual [0,1] range in more traditional joint decision making contexts. In terms of substantive results, we find that male respondents place more weight on their partner’s travel time, while female respondents place more weight on their partner’s salary.

Keywords

Household decisions Distributional assumptions Random coefficients Joint decisions Bargaining coefficient 

References

  1. Adamowicz, W., Hanemann, M., Swait, J., Johnson, R., Layton, D., Regenwetter, M., Reimer, T., Sorkin, R.: Decision strategy and structure in households: a “groups” perspective. Mark. Lett. 16(3/4), 387–399 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aribarg, A., Arora, N., Bodur, H.O.: Understanding the role of preference revision and concession in group decisions. J. Mark. Res. 39(3), 336–349 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arora, N., Allenby, G.M.: Measuring the influence of individual preference structures in group decision making. J. Mark. Res. 36(4), 476–487 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman, I., Munro, A.: An experiment on risky choice amongst households. Econ. J. 115(502), C176–C189 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beharry-Borg, N., Hensher, D.A., Scarpa, R.: An analytical framework for joint vs separate decisions by couples in choice experiments: the case of coastal water quality in Tobago. Environ. Resour. Econ. 43(1), 95–117 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bierlaire, M.: BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss transportation research conference, Ascona, Switzerland (2003)Google Scholar
  7. Browning, M., Chiappori, P.A.: Efficient intra-household allocations: a general characterization and empirical tests. Econometrica 66(6), 1241–1278 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caussade, S., Ortúzar, J. de D., Rizzi, L., Hensher, D.A.: Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transp. Res. Part B 39(7), 621–640 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daly, A.J., Hess, S.: Simple methods for panel data analysis. Paper presented at the 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. (2011)Google Scholar
  10. Daly, A., Hess, S., Train, K.: Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay estimates from random coefficients models. Transportation 39(1), 19–31 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dellaert, B.G.C., Prodigalidad, M., Louviere, J.J.: Family members’ projections of each other’s preference and influence: a two-stage conjoint approach. Mark. Lett. 9(2), 135–145 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dosman, D., Adamowicz, W.: Combining stated and revealed preference data to construct an empirical examination of intrahousehold bargaining. Rev. Econ. Househ. 4(1), 15–34 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halton, J.: On the efficiency of certain quasi-random sequences of points in evaluating multi-dimensional integrals. Numerische Mathematik 2, 84–90 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Black, I.: Interactive agency choice in automobile purchase decisions: the role of negotiation in determining equilibrium choice outcomes. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 42(2), 269–296 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. Hess, S., Bierlaire, M., Polak, J.W.: Estimation of value of travel-time savings using mixed logit models. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 39(2/3), 221–236 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Katz, E.: The intra-household economics of voice and exit. Fem. Econ. 3(3), 25–46 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lampietti, J.: Do husbands and wives make the same choices? Evidence from Northern Ethiopia. Econ. Lett. 62(2), 253–260 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marcucci, E., Stathopoulos, A., Rotaris, L., Danielis, R.: Comparing single and joint preferences: a choice experiment on residential location in three member households. Environ. Plan. A 43(5), 1209–1225 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Munro, A.: Introduction to the special issue: things we do and don’t understand about the household and the environment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 43(1), 1–10 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Myers, D.G., Lamm, H.: The group polarization phenomenon. Psychol. Bull. 83(4), 602–627 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rao, V.R., Steckel, J.H.: A polarization model for describing group preferences. J. Consumer Res. 18(1), 108–118 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Steckel, J.H., Corfman, K.P., Curry, D.J., Gupta, S., Shanteau, J.: Prospects and problems in modeling group decisions. Mark. Lett. 2(3), 231–240 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Swärdh, J., Algers, S.: Willingness to accept commuting time for yourself and for your spouse: empirical evidence from Swedish stated preference data. Working Papers 2009:5, Swedish National Road & Transport Research Institute (VTI) (2009)Google Scholar
  24. Train, K.: Discrete choice methods with simulation, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vermeulen, F.: Collective household models: principles and main results. J. Econ. Surv. 16(4), 533–564 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical Research Council Biostatistics UnitInstitute of Public HealthCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations