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.
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
Arora N (2006) Estimating joint preference: a sub-sampling approach. Int J Res Mark 23: 409–418
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
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
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
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
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
Corfman KP (1991) Perceptions of relative influence: formation and measurement. J Mark Res 28: 125–136
Corfman KP, Lehmann DR (1987) Models of cooperative group decision-making and relative influence. J Consumer Res 14(1): 11–13
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Menasco MB, Curry DJ (1989) Utility and choice: an empirical study of wife/husband decision making. J Consumer Res 16(1): 87–97
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
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
Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Vermuelen F (2002) Collective household models: principles and main results. J Econ Surv 16(4): 533–564
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9420-3