Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models

There is growing interest in establishing a mechanism to account for scale heterogeneity across individuals (essentially the variance of a variance term or the standard deviation of utility over different choice situations), in addition to the more commonly identified taste heterogeneity in mixed logit models. A number of authors have recently proposed a model that recognizes the relationship between scale and taste heterogeneity, and investigated the behavioural implications of accounting for scale heterogeneity in contrast to a term in the utility function, itself. In this paper we present a general model that extends the mixed logit model to explicitly account for scale heterogeneity in the presence of preference heterogeneity, and compare it with models that assume only scale heterogeneity (referred to as the scale heterogeneous multinomial logit model) and only preference heterogeneity. Our empirical assessment suggests that accommodating scale heterogeneity in the absence of accounting for preference heterogeneity may be of limited empirical interest, resulting in a statistically inferior model, despite it being an improvement over the standard MNL model. Scale heterogeneity in the presence of preference heterogeneity does garner favour, with the generalized mixed logit model an improvement over the standard mixed logit model. The evidence herein suggests, however, that compared to a failure to account for preference heterogeneity that is consequential, failure to account for scale heterogeneity may not be of such great empirical consequence in respect of behavioural outputs such as direct elasticities and willingness to pay. However additional studies are required to establish the extent to which this evidence is transferable to a body of studies.

[1]  M. Thiene,et al.  Using Flexible Taste Distributions to Value Collective Reputation for Environmentally Friendly Production Methods , 2008 .

[2]  Denzil G. Fiebig,et al.  The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity , 2010, Mark. Sci..

[3]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Combining sources of preference data , 1998 .

[4]  David A. Hensher,et al.  The Mixed Logit Model: the State of Practice and Warnings for the Unwary , 2001 .

[5]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to Pay Space , 2005 .

[6]  K. Train Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2003 .

[7]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Valuation of travel time savings in WTP and preference space in the presence of taste and scale heterogeneity , 2011 .

[8]  Edward R. Morey,et al.  Investigating Preference Heterogeneity in a Repeated Discrete-Choice Recreation Demand Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing , 2000, Marine Resource Economics.

[9]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps , 2008 .

[10]  John M. Rose,et al.  Stated Preference Experimental Design Strategies , 2007 .

[11]  K. Train,et al.  Utility in WTP Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps , 2006 .

[12]  R. Scarpa,et al.  Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment , 2005, Land Economics.

[13]  Mogens Fosgerau,et al.  Investigating the distribution of the value of travel time savings , 2006 .

[14]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Modeling the choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information , 2008 .

[15]  Jj Louviere,et al.  Confound it! That pesky little scale constant messes up our convenient assumptions , 2006 .

[16]  Mogens Fosgerau,et al.  Using nonparametrics to specify a model to measure the value of travel time , 2007 .

[17]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Development of Commuter and Non-Commuter Mode Choice Models for the Assessment of New Public Transport Infrastructure Projects: A Case Study , 2007 .

[18]  John M. Rose,et al.  Random Scale Heterogeneity in Discrete Choice Models , 2009 .

[19]  Robert Kohn,et al.  Dissecting the Random Component of Utility , 2002 .

[20]  András Simonovits,et al.  Optimal Design of Pension Rule with Flexible Retirement: The Two-Type Case , 2006 .

[21]  Kenneth E. Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2016 .

[22]  Thomas Otter,et al.  Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models , 2007 .

[23]  Andrew Daly,et al.  Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models , 2009 .

[24]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Attribute Processing, Heuristics, and Preference Construction in Choice Analysis , 2009 .

[25]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Combining Sources of Preference Data for Modeling Complex Decision Processes , 1999 .

[26]  Christophe Béné,et al.  Storage and Viability of a Fishery with Resource and Market Dephased Seasonalities , 2000 .

[27]  John M. Rose,et al.  Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives , 2008 .