Individuals' social preferences in joint activity location choice: A negotiation model and empirical evidence

被引:11
作者
Arentze, Theo A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Eindhoven Univ Technol, Fac Built Environm, Real Estate Management & Dev Grp, NL-5600 MB Eindhoven, Netherlands
关键词
Joint activities; Activity-based modeling; Group decision making; Social utility; DECISION-MAKING; ALLOCATION; UTILITY; TRAVEL; TIME; NETWORKS; FAIRNESS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.08.018
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Out-of-home leisure activities are often conducted jointly by individuals implying that location and travel choices made for these activities are the result of a group interaction. Current utility-theoretic approaches assume an aggregated group utility function and hence ignore aspects of the group decision making process. In this study, an empirical model of joint-activity choice is developed that, in contrast, assumes a negotiation process. A social utility function describes how individuals deal with preference differences in the group. The model is estimated based on an experimental activity-travel choice task where group settings are mimicked. A sample (N = 315) from a national panel of individuals participated in the experiment. Estimation results based on a discrete mixture model show that individuals display a preference for locations in which losses are equally distributed in the group even when this comes at the costs of the total group outcome. Results further show that the social utility function is asymmetric: compromise solutions are favored more strongly when consequences relate to costs (travel costs) than when they concern rewards (attractiveness). Furthermore, there is considerable heterogeneity in how people make social trade-offs. It is concluded that the model offers new insights in location preferences for joint activities that should be taken into account in spatial choice models and accessibility analysis. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:76 / 84
页数:9
相关论文
共 28 条
[11]  
Hess S., 2007, EUROPEAN TRANSPORT, V37, P35
[12]   Insights into a spatially embedded social network from a large-scale snowball sample [J].
Illenberger, J. ;
Kowald, M. ;
Axhausen, K. W. ;
Nagel, K. .
EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B, 2011, 84 (04) :549-561
[13]   Automated negotiation: Prospects, methods and challenges [J].
Jennings, NR ;
Faratin, P ;
Lomuscio, AR ;
Parsons, S ;
Wooldridge, MJ ;
Sierra, C .
GROUP DECISION AND NEGOTIATION, 2001, 10 (02) :199-215
[14]   SOCIAL UTILITY AND DECISION-MAKING IN INTERPERSONAL CONTEXTS [J].
LOEWENSTEIN, GF ;
BAZERMAN, MH ;
THOMPSON, L .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1989, 57 (03) :426-441
[15]   Negotiating on location, timing, duration, and participant in agent-mediated joint activity-travel scheduling [J].
Ma, Huiye ;
Ronald, Nicole ;
Arentze, Theo A. ;
Timmermans, Harry J. P. .
JOURNAL OF GEOGRAPHICAL SYSTEMS, 2013, 15 (04) :427-451
[16]   New Credit Mechanism for Semicooperative Agent-Mediated Joint Activity-Travel Scheduling Negotiating with Incomplete Information [J].
Ma, Huiye ;
Ronald, Nicole ;
Arentze, Theo A. ;
Timmermans, Harry J. P. .
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, 2011, (2230) :104-110
[17]  
McFadden D., 1986, Mark. Sci., V5, P275, DOI [DOI 10.1287/MKSC.5.4.275, 10.1287/mksc.5.4.275]
[18]   Group-based versus individual-based conjoint preference models of residential preferences: a comparative test [J].
Molin, E ;
Oppewal, H ;
Timmermans, H .
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING A, 1999, 31 (11) :1935-1947
[19]  
Molin E., 2000, Marketing Letters, V11, P165
[20]   Dealing with Timing and Synchronization in Opportunities for Joint Activity Participation [J].
Neutens, Tijs ;
Schwanen, Tim ;
Miller, Harvey J. .
GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS, 2010, 42 (03) :245-266