Abstract
There is growing interest in the use of models that recognise the role of individuals’ attitudes and perceptions in choice behaviour. Rather than relying on simple linear approaches or a potentially bias-inducing deterministic approach based on incorporating stated attitudinal indicators directly in the choice model, researchers have recently recognised the latent nature of attitudes. The uptake of such latent attitude models in applied work has however been slow, while a number of overly simplistic assumptions are also commonly made. In this article, we present an application of jointly estimated attitudinal and choice models to a real-world transport study, looking at the role of latent attitudes in a rail travel context. Our results show the impact that concern with privacy, liberty and security, and distrust of business, technology and authority have on the desire for rail travel in the face of increased security measures, as well as for universal security checks. Alongside demonstrating the applicability of the model in applied work, we also address a number of theoretical issues. We first show the equivalence of two different normalisations discussed in the literature. Unlike many other latent attitude studies, we explicitly recognise the repeated choice nature of the data. Finally, the main methodological contribution comes in replacing the typically used continuous model for attitudinal response by an ordered logit structure which more correctly accounts for the ordinal nature of the indicators.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A linear structural relation (LISREL) model is a special case.
For alternatives that can be labelled it would be usual to include sufficient unit values in X to allow appropriate constants to be estimated. That is, X(J,M) represents the measured variables, both alternative-specific and socio-economic (and compounds of these) that affect choice.
For the present study we have not introduced off-diagonal elements into the covariance matrix E of the distribution, allowing for correlation between different attitudinal responses, but the possibility of doing so is provided within the notation.
However, note that Ben-Akiva and Bolduc are actually both among the authors of both papers.
References
Ashok, K., Dillon, W.R., Yuan, S.: Extending discrete choice models to incorporate attitudinal and other latent variables. J. Mark. Res. 39(1), 31–46 (2002)
BBC (2006) Extracts from MI5 chief’s speech (Interview of Eliza Manningham-Buller) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6135000.stm. May 2008
Ben-Akiva, M., Walker, J., Bernardino, A.T., Gopinath, D.A., Morikawa, T., Polydoropoulou, A.: Integration of Choice and Latent Variable Models. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (1999)
Bhat, C.R., Guo, J.Y.: A comprehensive analysis of built environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto ownership levels. Transp. Res. B 41(5), 506–526 (2007)
Bolduc D., Daziano R.A.: On the estimation of hybrid choice models. Paper presented at the international choice modelling conference, Harrogate (2008)
Bolduc, D., Ben-Akiva, M., Walker, J., Michaud, A.: Hybrid choice models with logit kernel: applicability to large scale models. In: Lee-Gosselin, M., Doherty, S. (eds.) Integrated land-use and transportation models: behavioural foundations, pp. 275–302. Elsevier, Oxford (2005)
Choo, S., Mokhtarian, P.L.: What type of vehicle do people drive? The role of attitude and lifestyle in influencing vehicle type choice. Transp. Res. A 38, 201–222 (2004)
Clarke, P: DAC Peter Clark’s speech on counter terrorism. Metropolitan Police. http://cms.met.police.uk/news/major_operational_announcements/terrorism/dac_peter_clark_s_speech_on_counter_terrorism. May 2008 (2007)
Cozens, P.M., Neale, R.H., Whitaker, J., Hillier, D.: Investigating perceptions of personal security on the valley lines network in South Wales. World Transp. Policy Pract. 8(1), 19–29 (2002)
Doornik, J.A.: Ox: An Object-Oriented Matrix Language. Timberlake Consultants Press, London (2001)
Elrod, T.: Choice map: inferring a product-market maps from panel data. Mark. Sci. 7(1), 21–40 (1988)
Elrod, T., Keane, M.P.: A factor-analytic probit model for representing the market structure in panel data. J. Mark. Res. 32(1), 1–16 (1995)
Gärling, T.: Behavioral assumptions overlooked in travel-choice modelling. In: Ortuzar, J., Jara-Diaz, S., Hensher, D. (eds.) Transport Modelling, pp. 3–18. Pergamon, Oxford (1998)
Golob, T.: Joint models of attitudes and behaviour in evaluation of the San Diego I-15 congestion pricing project. Transp. Res. A 35, 495–514 (2001)
Golob, T.F.: Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transp. Res. B 37(1), 1–25 (2003)
Golob, T.F., Bunch, D.S., Brownstone, D.: A vehicle use forecasting model based on revealed and stated vehicle type choice and utilization data. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 31, 69–92 (1997)
Greene, D.L., Hensher, D.: Modelling Ordered Choices: A Primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)
Johansson, V.M., Heldt, T., Johansson, P.: The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice. Transp. Res. A 40(6), 507–525 (2006)
Kumaraguru, P., Cranor, L.F.: Privacy Indexes: A Survey of Westin’s Studies. Institute for Software Research International, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh (2005)
Louis Harris, & Associates, Westin, A.F.: Equifax-Harris Consumer Privacy Survey. Technical Report Conducted for Equifax Inc. 1, 005 Adults of the U.S. Public. Louis Harris & Associates, New York (1994)
Morikawa, T., Ben-Akiva, M., McFadden, D.: Discrete choice models incorporating revealed preferences and psychometric data. In: Franses, P.H., Montgomery, A.L. (eds.) Econometric Models in Marketing. Advances in Econometrics, vol. 16, 16th edn, pp. 29–55. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2002)
Potoglou, D., Robinson, N., Kim, C.W., Burge, P., Warnes, R.: Quantifying individuals’ trade-offs between privacy, liberty and security: the case of rail travel in UK. Transp. Res. A 44(3), 169–181 (2010)
Srinivasan, S., Bhat, C.R., Holguin-Veras, J.: Empirical analysis of the impact of security perception on intercity mode choice. Transp. Res. Rec. 2006, 9–15 (2006)
Temme, D., Paulssen, M., Dannewald, T.: Incorporating latent variables into discrete choice models—a simulation estimation approach using SEM software. Bus. Res. 1(2), 220–237 (2008)
UK Dept. for Transport: Responsibilities of Transport Security’s Land Transport Division http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/security/land/responsibilitiesoftransports4898. Nov 2008 (2006)
UK Dept. for Transport: Summary report of the ‘LUNR’ passenger screening trials http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/security/land/lunr. Dec 2008 (2008)
Walker, J., Ben-Akiva, M.: Generalized random utility model. Math. Soc. Sci. 43(3), 303–343 (2002)
Yañez, M.F., Raveau, S., Ortúzar, J. de D.: Inclusion of latent variables in mixed logit models: modelling and forecasting. Trans. Res. Part A 44, 744–753 (2010)
Acknowledgments
We are grateful for the advice of Moshe Ben-Akiva, particularly concerning the specification of the alternative normalisations of the model. Responsibility for any errors or interpretations remains the responsibility of the authors alone. Stephane Hess also acknowledges the support of the Leverhulme Trust in the form of a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The author names are arranged alphabetically.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Daly, A., Hess, S., Patruni, B. et al. Using ordered attitudinal indicators in a latent variable choice model: a study of the impact of security on rail travel behaviour. Transportation 39, 267–297 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-011-9351-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-011-9351-z