Spatial Choice: A Matter of Utility or Regret?

Caspar Chorus, Theo A Arentze and Harry J P Timmermans

Environment and Planning B, 2009, vol. 36, issue 3, 538-551

Abstract: This paper provides an empirical comparison between utility-maximization and regret-minimization perspectives of spatial-choice behaviour. The key difference between these two perspectives is that the regret-minimization perspective implies that the anticipated satisfaction associated with a chosen spatial alternative depends on the anticipated performance of nonchosen alternatives. In order to provide a meaningful statistical comparison, we formulate a model of regret minimization such that it reduces to utility maximization for a given parameter restriction. Estimation results, based on a binary stated travel-mode-choice experiment, show how the regret-based model outperforms its utilitarian counterpart. Furthermore it is shown how participants in the experiment attached relatively much weight to the situation where the nonchosen alternative is slightly better than the chosen one, and they tend to discount larger differences. We show how this concavity of the regret function is in line with the prospect theoretical notion of risk-seeking behaviour in the domain of losses.

Date: 2009
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (9)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b34092 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:envirb:v:36:y:2009:i:3:p:538-551

DOI: 10.1068/b34092

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Environment and Planning B
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().