Skip to main content
Log in

Accounting for Preference and Scale Heterogeneity in Establishing Whether it Matters Who is Interviewed to Reveal Household Automobile Purchase Preferences

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The choice of automobile purchases in households often involves participation of more than one household member, each of which exerts some degree of influence on the final choice outcome. The influence of more than one agent has been recognised for many years, and yet the majority of automobile choice studies develop choice models as if a single agent is involved in the preference revelation process. What is not clear is whether it makes any substantive difference in preference revelation according to who is interviewed in a household. Using a generalised mixed logit framework that accounts for preference and scale heterogeneity, we estimate a series of models to investigate whether there are significant differences between the preferences of each individual in a household when assessed in isolation from other household members, as well as their joint preferences when expressing their preferences through a group choice task. The context is choosing amongst petrol, diesel and hybrid fuelled vehicles (associated with specific levels of fuel efficiency and engine capacity) when faced with a mix of vehicle prices, fuel prices, fixed annual registration fees, annual emission surcharges and vehicle kilometre emission surcharges. Using a stated choice experiment, we find that sampling a single individual as a representative of the household’s preferences is less appropriate than utilising preference information from the relevant group of decision makers in the household.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arora N, Allenby GM (1999) Measuring the influence of individual preference structures in group decision making. J Mark Res 37(November): 476–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora N (2006) Estimating joint preference: a sub-sampling approach. Int J Res Mark 23: 409–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aribarg A, Arora N, Bodur HO (2002) Understanding the role of preference revision and concession in group decisions. J Mark Res 39(August): 336–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aribarg A, Arora N, Young Kang M (2009) Predicting joint choice using individual data. Mark Sci. Published online. doi:10.1287/mksc.1090.0490

  • Bateman I, Munro A (2005) An experiment on risky choice amongst households. Econ J 115: 176–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck M, Hensher DA, Rose JM (2009) Report of a pilot survey for the automobile choice project. Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Beharry N, Hensher D, Scarpa R (2009) An analytical framework for joint vs. separate decisions by couples in choice experiments: the case of coastal water quality in Tobago. Environ Resour Econ Househ Groups Spec Issue 43:95–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliemer MC, Rose JM (2009) Efficiency and sample size requirements for stated choice experiments. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington DC January

  • Brewer A, Hensher DA (2000) Distributed work and travel behaviour: the dynamics of interactive agency choices between employers and employees. Transportation 27(1): 117–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corfman KP (1991) Perceptions of relative influence: formation and measurement. J Mark Res 28: 125–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corfman KP, Lehmann DR (1987) Models of cooperative group decision-making and relative influence. J Consumer Res 14(1): 11–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosman D, Adamowicz W (2006) Combining stated and revealed preference data to construct an empirical examination of intrahousehold bargaining. Rev Househ Econ 4: 15–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiebig D, Keane M, Louviere J, Wasi N (2009) The generalized multinomial logit: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark Sci. Published online before print July 23. doi:10.1287/mksc.1090.0508

  • Greene WH, Hensher DA (2010) Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? A comparative assessment of logit models. Transportation 37(3): 413–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA (2002) A systematic assessment of the environmental impacts of transport policy: an end use perspective. Environ Res Econ 22(1–2): 185–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA (2010) Attribute processing, heuristics and preference construction in choice analysis. In: Hess S, Daly A (eds) State-of art and state-of practice in choice modelling. Emerald Press, pp 35–70

  • Hensher DA, Greene WH (2003) Mixed logit models: state of practice. Transportation 30(2): 133–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Puckett SM (2007) Theoretical and conceptual frameworks for studying agent interaction and choice revelation in transportation studies. Int J Transp Econ XXXIV(1): 17–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Puckett SM (2008) Power, concession and agreement in freight distribution chains subject to distance-based user charges. Int J Logist Res Appl 11(2):81–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Rose J, Black I (2008) Interactive agency choice in automobile purchase decisions: the role of negotiation in determining equilibrium choice outcomes. J Transp Econ Policy 42(2): 269–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess S, Rose JM, Bain S (2009) Random scale heterogeneity in discrete choice models, mimeo, June 23

  • Keane M (2006) The generalized logit model: preliminary ideas on a research program. Presentation at Motorola-CenSoC Hong Kong Meeting, October 22, 2006

  • Krishnamurthi L (1988) Conjoint models of family decision making. Int J Res Mark 5(3): 185–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menasco MB, Curry DJ (1989) Utility and choice: an empirical study of wife/husband decision making. J Consumer Res 16(1): 87–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ (2008) Stated preference experimental design strategies. In: Hensher DA, Button KJ (eds) Handbook of transport modelling (Chap. 8). Elsevier, Oxford, pp 151–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose JM, Bliemer MC, Hensher, Collins AT (2008) Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transp Res Part B 42(4): 395–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vermuelen F (2002) Collective household models: principles and main results. J Econ Surv 16(4): 533–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Hensher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hensher, D.A., Beck, M.J. & Rose, J.M. Accounting for Preference and Scale Heterogeneity in Establishing Whether it Matters Who is Interviewed to Reveal Household Automobile Purchase Preferences. Environ Resource Econ 49, 1–22 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9420-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9420-3

Keywords

Navigation