About Attitudes and Perceptions: Finding the Proper Way to Consider Latent Variables in Discrete Choice Models

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractWe provide an in-depth theoretical discussion about the differences between attitudes and perceptions, as well as an empirical exercise to analyze its effects. This discussion is of importance, as the large majority of papers considering attitudinal latent variables, just consider those as attributes affecting directly the utility of a certain alternative while systematic taste variations are rarely taken into account and perceptions are normally completely ignored.The results of our case study show that perceptions may indeed affect the decision making process and that they are able to capture a significant part of the variability that is normally explained by alternative specific constants. In the same line, our results indicate that attitudes may be a reason for systematic taste variations, and that a proper categorization of the latent variables, in accordance with the underlying theory, may outperform the customary assumption of linearity.

The role of intention as mediator between latent effects and behavior: application of a hybrid choice model to study departure time choices

“…The majorities of these studies focused on the effect of individuals' attitudes and mostly include only one latent effect at a time. There is also an increasing number of papers accounting for more than one single latent variable (Walker and Ben-Akiva, 2002;Johansson et al, 2006;Raveau et al, 2010;Yáñez et al, 2010;Daly et al, 2012;Glerum et al, 2014;Bahamonde-Birke et al, 2014) but they focus only on attitudes and perceptions and only on their direct effect on the discrete choice.…”

Perception of Acceptance Barriers and Cashless Payments Value: Evidence From Russian Merchants

“…Perception of higher acquiring terminal malfunctioning barriers does not significantly affect the share of cashless revenue according to model (7). Nevertheless, estimation results of models (2), (4), (6) and (11) suggest that there is a significant effect of connection quality perception (and infrastructural barriers in general) on the cashless revenue on 10% significance level. Intuitively, higher regional expenditure on network services within the region last year increases the probability that the connection within the region will be stable and prompt this year.…”

Approaches for Modelling User’s Acceptance of Innovative Transportation Technologies and Systems

“…Rho-square 0.212 *in parenthesis the t-test values. 1 Only the log-likelihood associated with the discrete choice component is considered. (see Section 5.1).…”

“…Several recent analyses have pointed out the necessity to take into account attributes considering the perceptions and the attitudes of the users. For example, see [1]. The main issues of the literature refer to:…”