Constructing choice sets: Orthogonal designs

Lecture 2 (SEN1221 – part II)

11-12-2019
Eric Molin – TU Delft

Delft
University of
Technology

Challenge the future

Focus

• constructing stated choice experiments for observing choice data

• previous lecture
• constructing alternatives using basic plans

• this lecture
• constructing choice sets
• sequential and simultaneous construction
• Ngene introduction

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 2

2
recap experimental design

• scheme that determines how to combine attribute levels:

• each attribute is assigned to a column (vertical)
• number in cell indicates an attribute level
• each row represents an alternative

1 price 2 time 3 comfort

0: € 1 0: 10 min. 0: low
1: € 3 1: 20 min 1: high

1 0 0 1) €3 , 10 min , low comfort

1 1 1 2) €3 , 20 min , high comfort
0 0 1
3) €1 , 10 min , high comfort
0 1 0
4) €1 , 20Regret
minin Traveler
, low comfort
Decision Making 3
3
two ways of constructing experimental designs

1. by basic plans
• published paper schemes
• orthogonal designs only
• easy to use

2. by Ngene
• licensed software
• offers more possibilities (a.o. efficient designs)
• allows evaluating design characteristics

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 4

4
basic plans

• published orthogonal fractional factorial designs

• constructed by mathematicians
• used to construct alternatives & choice sets

• characteristics of basic plans

1. orthogonal attributes
• results in smallest possible standard error
• only applies to linear models (e.g. regression analysis)
• thus most reliable parameters

2. attribute level balance (not absolutely necessary)

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 5

5
Constructing choice sets

stated choice
Regret experiments
in Traveler Decision Making 6
Constructing choice sets

• choice set
= two or more alternatives to choose from

• Two possibilities for constructing choice sets:

1. Sequential construction
• construct alternatives
• randomly place alternatives into choice sets

2. Simultaneous construction
• simultaneously construct alternatives and choice sets

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 7

7
Sequential construction

stated choice
Regret experiments
in Traveler Decision Making 8
Steps in sequential construction

1. first construct alternatives (see lecture 1)

2. decide how many options in each choice set

• typically 2 (see also lecture 3),
• for estimating regret models you need at least 3 alts.

3. Take two vases: A and B, put in each vase all numbered

alternatives

4. randomly draw one alternative from each vase, redraw if:

• the same alternatives
• replicate a choice set: e.g. {5,8} = {8,5}

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 9

5. check correlations between attributes of different options 9
When apply sequential construction?

• only generic attributes

= all alternatives have the same attributes and levels

= unlabeled alternatives
• alternative names do not represent a characteristic
• option 1, option 2; flight 1, flight 2; car1, car2

• in contrast: labeled alternatives

• labels represent characteristics not varied in experiment
• modes: car, train, bicycle
• brands: Ryanair, KLM, Ethiopian Airlines
• allow to select different attributes and/or levels per label
• estimate alternative specific
Regret parameters
in Traveler Decision Making 10
10
Example of unlabeled alternatives

• both alternatives have the same attributes

• label has no meaning other than distinction

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 11

11
 Example of labeled alternatives

Characteristics Paid, indoors, surveyed facility Free, open air facility

Price of bicycle parking € 0.30 per day
Surveillance Surveyed by camera
Walking time to platform 0 minutes walking 3 minutes walking

Imagine this situation applies to Delft station, what would you choose?

• Alternatives have a name that represent particular characteristics

that are not varied (e.g. indoor/open air; paid/free)

• alternative specific attributes:

• surveillance: paid always personnel (fixed); free: varies
• levels walking time: paid: 0,1,2; free: 3,4,5 minutes
• price paid: varies; free: always
Regret in 0 (fixed)
Traveler Decision Making 12
12
Illustration sequential construction
Flight choice case

stated choice
Regret experiments
in Traveler Decision Making 13
Introduction flight choice case

• Background: increasing competition between

• main carriers
• KLM, Air France, Lufthansa, etc.
• services are all inclusive
• budget carriers
• Ryan Air, Easyjet etc.
• cheaper, but pay extra for services
• often use airports at longer distances from city

• aim: observe trade-offs between

• ticket price, services, and egress transport

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 14

14
selected attributes

• Price – 4 levels: €80 / €100 / €120 / €140

• Services
• Meal – 2 levels: €0 / €7,50
• Baggage – 2 levels: €0 / €25
• Legroom – 2 levels: 74 / 80 cm

• Egress transport: of arrival airport to final destination

• Travel time 4 levels: 20 / 40 / 60 / 80 minutes
• Travel costs 4 levels: €5 / €10 / €15 / €20

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 15

15
constructing profiles

• Number of profiles
• 3 attributes in 4 levels & 3 attributes in 2 levels
• full factorial = 4*4*4*2*2*2 = 43*23 = 512 profiles

• Basic plan 3
• 16 profiles
• Only main effects, no interactions

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 16

16
 BASIC PLAN 3: 45; 35; 215; 16 trials
numbering 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 1 1 1
* * * * * * * * * * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 01 2 3 4 5
columns
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 2 3 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
0 2 2 3 1 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
0 3 3 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1
1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
design 1 1 0 3 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
1 2 3 2 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
1 3 2 0 3 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
2 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
2 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
2 2 0 1 3 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
2 3 1 3 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
3 0 3 3 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
3 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
3 2 1 0 2 1 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
3 3 0 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
see doc.:
Use of basic 1- 0 0 0 2- 0 0 0 3- 0 0 0 4- 1 1 1 5- 1 1 1
Regret in Traveler Decision Making 17
plans *- 1 2 3 *- 4 5 6 *- 7 8 9 *- 0 1 2 *- 3 4 5 17
assigning attributes and levels

• price: column 1*: 0=€80 / 1=€100 / 2=€120 / 3=€140

• time egress transport: column 2*:

• 0=20 / 1=40 / 2=60 / 3=80 minutes

• costs egress transport: column 3*: 0=€5 / 1=€10 / 2=€15 / 3=€20

• Meal- column 10: 0=€0 / 1=€7,50

• Baggage – column 11: 0=€0 / 1=€25

• Legroom – column 12: 0=74 / 1=80 cm

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 18

18
16 profiles
columns: 1* 2* 3* 10 11 12

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 19

19
Check correlations

• Not any pair of attributes is correlated

• thus the design is orthogonal

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 20

20
Constructing choice sets

• two alternatives per choice set

• two vases:
A. 16 alternatives for alternative A
B. 16 alternatives for alternative B

• creating choice sets:

• Set 1: random draw one alt. from vase A & one from vase B
• Set 2: repeat
• until both vases are empty and 16 choice sets are created

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 21

21
Constructed choice sets

• Numbers in choice sets refer

to the constructed profiles

• e.g. choice set 1:

• FlightA = profile 3
• FlightB = profile 13

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 22

22
 Which alternatives in choice set 1?

Choice set 1 Flight A Flight B

• Price €80 €140
• Time egress transp. 60 min. 20 min.
• Price egress transp. €15 €20
• Price meal for free for free
• Price baggage for free for free
• Legroom 74 cm. 74 cm. 23
Regret in Traveler Decision Making
23
Checking orthogonality

stated choice
Regret experiments
in Traveler Decision Making 24
Assignment

1. Are the attributes within the 16 FlightA alternatives

correlated?
• for example: priceA with timeA?

2. Are the attributes between the two flight alternatives (Flight

and FlightB) correlated?
• for example: priceA with priceB?

3. How come?

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 25

25
database assignment

FlightA alternatives FlightB alternatives

question 1 question 2

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 26

26
answer to question 3.1

• attributes within the 16 FlightA alternatives are not correlated

• construction of the alternatives is based on a basic plan
• is properly applied  design is orthogonal
• this also hold for attributes within the FlightB alternatives

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 27

27
 Answer to question 3.2

• attributes between the A and B alternatives are correlated!

• alternatives were randomly placed in the choice sets
• thus not controlled by an experimental design

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 28

28
are correlations problematic?
• only correlations between alternatives, the within alternative
correlations are all zero
• thus parameters can be estimated, not really problematic

• still low correlations are preferred: it minimizes standard errors

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 29

29
Minimize correlations

• how can we reduce those correlations?

• endlessly randomly drawing
• e.g. for every respondent

• practical solution for paper and pen questionnaires

• randomize 3 times, thus 3 versions
• assign each respondent randomly to 1 version

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 30

30
3 randomizations – 3 versions
Version 1 Version 2 Version 3
Choice set FlightA FlightB FlightA FlightB FlightA FlightB

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 31

31
in total 3*16 = 48 choice sets constructed
Check correlations after 3 randomizations

• after 3 randomizations: lower correlations

• highest is now -0.500, was -0.671

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 32

32
Assignment

• In general: the higher the correlations between attributes, the

larger the standard errors of the parameters

• In which case are correlations more problematic?

1. generic attributes (unlabeled alternatives)

• every attribute appears twice: both in alt. A and alt.B

2. alternative specific attributes (labeled alternatives)

• every attribute appears only once: in either A or B

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 33

33
answer to assignment

• correlations are less problematic in case of generic attributes

• A and B have the same attributes:
• thus they appear twice in each choice set
• correlations are less problematic

• alternative specific attributes:

• A and B have different attributes
• thus appear only once in each choice set
• correlations are more problematic

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 34

34
illustration why between alternative
attribute correlations in labeled
experiments are more problematic

stated choice
Regret experiments
in Traveler Decision Making 35
Bike parking facility at train stations
• Unlabeled experiment
• P – price: 0 / 0,75 / 1,50
• WT – walking time to platform: 0 / 2.5 / 5 min.
• S – surveillance: N(one) / C(amera) / P(ersonnel)

• Label: Paid – indoor (parking)

• P: 0,3 / 0,9 / 1,50
• WT: 0 / 1 / 2
• FR(iendliness personnel): - / 0 / +

• Label: Free (parking)

• WT: 3 / 4 / 5
• S: N / C / P
• T(ype): I(indoor) / O(outdoor) / L(ocker)

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 36

36
labeled: correlation P and S = 1
paid free
P WT FR WT S T
0.3 .. .. .. N ..
0.3 N
0.3 N
0.75 C
0.75 C
0.75 C
1.5 P
1.5 P
1.5 P

• If choice for Paid in first 3 choice sets, not clear whether prefer
low price, of dislike none surveillance: no info on trade-offs
• Same: choice for Free in last 3 choice sets, not clear whether
prefer Personnel surveillance, or dislike
Regret in high
Travelerprice:
Decision Making 37
37
unlabeled: correlation PA and SB = 1
parking A parking B
PA SA WTA PB SB WTB
0.30 .. .. 0.30 N ..
0.30 0.75 N
0.30 1.50 N
0.75 0.30 C
0.75 0.75 C
0.75 1.50 C
1.50 0.30 P
1.50 0.75 P
1.50 1.50 P

• the between alternative correlation PA and SB is less problematic,

because P and S are both varied uncorrelated within both
alternatives A and B!  provides info on trade-offs P and S!
• each choice in unlabelled exp. provides
Regret in more
Traveler info onMaking
Decision trade-offs!
38
38
Simultaneous construction

stated choice
Regret experiments
in Traveler Decision Making 39
simultaneous construction of choice sets

• the columns of a basic plan are split

• part of the columns used for the first alternative
• part of the columns used for the second alternative
•…

• thus, a row of a designs:

• constructs two (or more) alternatives simultaneously
• thus represents a choice sets

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 40

40
 simultaneous construction - illustration
Basic plan 2
1 2 3 4
• car:
1 0 0 0 0
2 0 1 1 2 • column 1: travel cost car
3 0 2 2 1 • 0 = €2; 1 = €3; 2= €4
4 1 0 1 1
5 1 1 2 0
• column 2: travel time car
6 1 2 0 2 • 0= 20 min., 1 = 25 min., 2= 30 min
7 2 0 2 2 • train:
8 2 1 0 1
9 2 2 1 0 • column 3: travel cost train
• 0 = €1; 1 = €2; 2= €3
car train • column 4: travel time train
costs time costs time • 0= 25 min., 1 = 30 min., 2= 35 min
1 €2 20 €1 25
2 €2 25 €2 35
3 €2 30 €3 30 • Which alternatives are in choice set 1?
4 €3 20 €2 30
5 €3 25 25
• car: €2, 20 minutes
€3
6 €3 30 €1 35 • train: €1, 25 minutes
7 €4 20 €3 35
8 €4 25 €1 30
Regret in Traveler Decision Making 41
9 €4 30 €2 25 41
Assignment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. How many choice sets does this

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
design generate?
0 1 1 2 1 1 1
0 2 2 1 2 2 2 2. If we construct 2 alternatives per
1 0 1 1 1 2 0
1 1 2 0 2 0 1 choice set, how many attributes can
1 2 0 2 0 1 2 we include per alternative?
2 0 2 2 1 0 2 • which combinations are possible?
2 1 0 1 2 1 0
2 2 1 0 0 2 1
0 0 2 1 0 1 1
0 1 0 0 1 2 2
0 2 1 2 2 0 0
1 0 0 2 2 2 1
1 1 1 1 0 0 2
1 2 2 0 1 1 0
2 0 1 0 2 1 2
2 1 2 2 0 2 0
2 2 0 1 1 0 1
Regret in Traveler Decision Making 42
42
Answer to assignment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. 18 rows thus 18 choice sets

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
• because in simultaneous construction
0 1 1 2 1 1 1 a row represents a choice set
0 2 2 1 2 2 2
1 0 1 1 1 2 0
1 1 2 0 2 0 1 2. max. 7 attributes divided across 2
1 2 0 2 0 1 2 alternatives, combinations possible:
2 0 2 2 1 0 2 A B
2 1 0 1 2 1 0
2 2 1 0 0 2 1 • 0 & 7 (a base alt & one that varies)
0 0 2 1 0 1 1 •1&6
0 1 0 0 1 2 2 •2&5
0 2 1 2 2 0 0
1 0 0 2 2 2 1 •3&4
1 1 1 1 0 0 2 •4&3
1 2 2 0 1 1 0
•5&2
2 0 1 0 2 1 2
2 1 2 2 0 2 0 •6&1
2 2 0 1 1 0 1 • 7 & 0Regret
(a base alt Decision
in Traveler & oneMaking
that varies)
43
43
Comparing sequential and simultaneous
construction

stated choice
Regret experiments
in Traveler Decision Making 44
Assignment
• imagine the following stated choice experiment is constructed
• 4 attributes: x1, x2, x3, x4
• each attribute varies in 3 levels
• choice sets of 3 alternatives each: alt1, alt2, alt3

1. Would basic plan 2 be suitable for sequential construction?

2. How many choice sets would be constructed?
3. Do correlations exist between attributes of different
alternatives?
1 2 3 4
0 0 0 0
0 1 1 2
0 2 2 1
1 0 1 1
1 1 2 0
1 2 0 2
2 0 2 2
2 1 0 1
Regret in Traveler Decision Making 45
2 2 1 0 45
sequential - correlations
requires only 9 choice sets

no within-alternative correlations
but between-alternative correlations

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 46

46
Assignment

• imagine the following stated choice experiment is constructed

• 4 attributes: x1, x2, x3, x4
• each attribute varies in 3 levels
• choice sets of 3 alternatives each: alt1, alt2, alt3

1. Would BP2 be suitable for simultaneous construction?

2. Are attributes of different alternatives correlated?

3. What determines the choice between seq. and sim. constr.?

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 47

47
simultaneous - correlations
requires 27 choice sets (3 times as many)

no within-alternative correlation and

also no between alternative correlations

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 48

48
When using sequential or simultaneous?

• sequential
• no within-alternative ~, but between-alternative correlations
• use for unlabeled alternatives with generic attributes
+ results in a small number of choice sets

• simultaneous
• no within and no between alternative correlations
• use for labeled alternatives with alternative specific
attributes
- typically more choice sets needed

• Unlabeled alternatives are generally preferred

- Use labeled only if absolutely necessary!
Regret in Traveler Decision Making 49
49
Alternative specific constants

stated choice
Regret experiments
in Traveler Decision Making 50
Assignment

• earlier choice sets were simultaneously constructed with labels car

and a train.

1. Which element is missing in the following utility functions?

• Vcar = βT * Time + βC * Costs
• Vtrain = βT * Time + βC * Costs

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 51

51
Answer to assignment

• An alternative specific constant is missing:

• Vcar = Ccar + βT * Time + βC * Costs
• Vtrain = βT * Time + βC * Costs

• Coding of the constants:

• 1 = car
• 0 = train

Assignment
• How can Ccar be interpreted?
• Assume that Ccar is positive: can you give reasons for such a finding?

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 52

52
Answers to assignment 7B
• interpretation Ccar = base utility of car
• Is the base utility for car
• Literally: utility difference of car compared to train when
all attributes have value 0
• Is determined by all characteristics associated with car,
but not included in the experiment

• omitted attributes associated with car that may result in a higher

Ccar value (higher base utility of car compared to train):
• higher comfort
• no need to plan
• door-to-door transport
• privacy
• able to play loud music
• higher status
Regret in Traveler Decision Making 53
• etc. 53
Assignment

• Recall that the following attributes were included

• time (in €): car (2,3,4); train (1,2,3)
• costs (in min.): car (20,25,30); train (25,30,35)

• utility functions:
• Vcar = Ccar + βT * Time + βC * Costs
• Vtrain = βT * Time + βC * Costs

• What does this simultaneously constructed choice experiment

allow to estimate that a sequentially constructed experiment does
not and which is not yet specified in the utility function?

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 54

54
Answers to assignment

• alternative specific parameters!

• utility functions:
• Vcar = Ccar + βT_car * Time + βC_car * Costs
• Vtrain = βT_train * Time + βC_train * Costs

• this allows examining whether weighs for time and cost differ
between car and train

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 55

55
 Assignment

• Does the utility function estimated from an unlabeled

experiment (such as example) include a constant?

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 56

56
Answer to assignment

• No, utility functions estimated from experiments that include

unlabeled alternatives only, do not have a constant
• A and B have exactly the same alternatives!
• There is no label that is associated by non-included
attributes
• Electric car 1 should have the same value as electric car 2

• if a statistically significant positive constant is found for electric

car 1, what does this mean?
• possibly resp. did not fully understand the experiment or
• they were lazy and choose the first alternative by default

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 57

57
base alternative

stated choice
Regret experiments
in Traveler Decision Making 58
primary question
Which electric car do you prefer?

• this examines: given that EC is purchased, which one?

• Does this reveal any information about EC demand?

• it does not observe choice between EC & fossil fueled car
• it does not tell anything about market potential of EC

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 59

• add base alternative: gasoline fueled car 59
integrated question
• “Which vehicle do you prefer?”
0 Electric car 1
0 Electric car 2
0 Gasoline fueled car

• base alternative: does not vary across choice sets

• disadvantage:
• choice for base alternative provides no information on
trade-offs among attributes

• rough rule of thumb:

• preferably a maximum of 10% of all choices  pre-test
this!!!
• otherwise problems in model estimation may arise
Regret in Traveler Decision Making
• unless you have many respondents 60
60
alternative: two questions

1. Which electric car do you prefer? only allows examining trade-

0 Electric car 1 offs between attributes
0 Electric car 2

2. Which alternative do you choose? allows estimating EC demand

0 this electric car
0 gasoline fuelled car Regret in Traveler Decision Making 61
61
treating the two questions

• if base alternative is chosen too often

• model only first choice
• hence, demand cannot be modelled
• is pity, but at least you tried

• if base alternative is not too often chosen

• combine the responses to both questions
1. if base alternative is preferred:
• response = 3, hence EC1 or EC2 is replaced
2. if EC is preferred:
• response = 1 (EC1) or 2 (EC2)

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 62

62
the electric car constant

• utility functions to be estimated:

EC1 = C + ∑ βi•Xi
EC2 = C + ∑ βi•Xi
Gasoline = 0

• C = EC constant
• coding of constant: 1 = electric car; 0 = gasoline car

• interpretation
• the base utility difference of EC compared to gasoline car
• is utility when all attributes have value 0
• is determined by all attributes and perceptions associated
with EC that are not variedRegret
in the experiment
in Traveler Decision Making 63
63
Ngene – software for experimental designs

stated choice
Regret experiments
in Traveler Decision Making 64
Ngene

• software package to construct experimental designs

• syntax driven
• utility function is basis

• Ngene manual is excellent

• reads as text book
• can generate many different designs

• online forum: questions are answered by experts

• o.a. Michiel Bliemer

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 65

65
Ngene at TU Delft

• in weblogin (Citrix) environment!

• for a maximum of 40 users at a single point in time
• in addition: for all participants of this course until the re-
exam

• installed on one computer in computer room A at TPM (not sure)

• computer: TUD901047
• from entrance: 3-th row, completely left (at wall),
underneath stairs

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 66

66
Assignment
• Imagine we wish to estimate the following utility function:

• Vcar = b0 + b1*time
• Vbus = b1*time + b2*price

1. Does this utility function represent generic or alternative specific

attributes?

2. Should we construct an experiment with labeled or with

unlabeled alternatives?

3. Should the sequential or the simultaneous construction method

be applied?

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 67

67
Answer to assignment
• Vcar = b0 + b1*time
• Vbus = b1*time + b2*price

1. Both generic and alternative specific attributes

• time is generic
• price is alternative specific

2. labeled alternatives
• b0 is an alternative specific constant
• Price is only varied for bus

3. The simultaneous method should be applied

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 68

68
Ngene syntax
see basic plans

? allows to make notes

? first example
design design: keyword for design specification
;alts = car, bus alts: specify a name for each alternative
;rows = 9 rows: indicate how many choice sets you aim for
;orth = sim orth: construct an orthogonal design
;model: sim: apply simultaneous method (seq for sequential)
U(car) = b0 + b1 * time[5,7.5,10] / closure of alternative
U(bus) = b1 * time + b2 * price[0.75,1,1.25]
$

specifies attribute levels for attribute time: hence, 5; 7.5 and 10 minutes
– Ngene automatically replaces design coding with real values
if attribute is generic, you do not need to repeat the attribute levels:
– the same levels are chosenRegret
for inbus andDecision
Traveler for carMaking 69
69
Running Ngene

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 70

70
Output

select and double click to

ignore this warning for orthogonal
open the design
designs: is related to efficient designs
Regret in Traveler Decision Making 71
71
 write down the
the design first choice set!

choice set 1:

1. car
time: 5 min.

2. bus
time: 5 min
price: € 0.75

• click + to check design properties

• for example: correlations and interactions
Regret in Traveler Decision Making 72
72
Check correlations

• simultaneous construction, thus all within and between alternative

correlations main effects are zero

• correlations exist between interactions and main effects

• and among interaction effects
Regret in Traveler Decision Making 73
73
including interactions

stated choice
Regret experiments
in Traveler Decision Making 74
estimating interaction-effects

• estimate interaction-effects? extent the utility function:

• Vcar = b0 + b1*time
• Vbus = b1*time + b2*price + b3*time*price

• result: interaction-effect is uncorrelated with all main effects

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 75

75
 Ngene syntax with interaction
? first example
design
;alts = car, bus you have to specify the number of choice sets:
;rows = 9 consult basic plans for indication
;orth = sim
;model:
U(car) = b0 + b1 * time[5,7.5,10] /
U(bus) = b1 * time + b2 * price[0.75,1,1.25] + b3 * time * price
$

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 76

76
 check correlations
• initial design before including the interaction

• design after specifying the interaction

• bus.time and bus.cost now uncorrelated with main effects

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 77
• higher correlations between other interactions (but no problem) 77
including interactions

• recap fractional factorial designs

• results in uncorrelated attributes
• however, attributes correlate with interactions
• (remedy: use foldover design, see lecture 5)

• if you wish to estimate specific interactions

• extent the utility function in the Ngene syntax
• results is called ‘compromise design’

• drawback:
• may result in more choice sets
• correlations among interactions may increase
• will usually not cause any problems
Regret in Traveler Decision Making 78
78
blocking

stated choice
Regret experiments
in Traveler Decision Making 79
number of choice sets per respondent

• +/- 10 choice situations per respondent should be possible

• depending on complexity of and familiarity with the
alternatives, attributes and the choice task

• blocking:
• divide total number of choice sets in smaller blocks
• by free column in the design

• characteristics of each block:

• not orthogonal
• but is attribute level balanced
• it is important that levels vary between choice sets
for every respondent!
Regret in Traveler Decision Making 80
80
blocking a basic plan

• column 4 is used for blocking

• columns 1, 2 & 3 are used to vary the attributes

• each block is attribute level balanced

• only complete design is orthogonal
Regret in Traveler Decision Making 81
81
blocking in Ngene
? first example
design
;alts = car, bus
;rows = 9
;orth = sim requires 3 blocks, that are internally
;block= 3 attribute level balanced
;model:
U(car) = b0 + b1 * time[5,7.5,10] /
U(bus) = b1 * time + b2 * price[0.75,1,1.25] + b3 * time * price
$

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 82

82
 check correlations
before blocking: no correlation between interaction & main

after blocking: correlations!

thus, blocking
may require
larger designs!
Regret in Traveler Decision Making 83
83
Content computer practical 1

1. practice with paper schemes to construct alternatives

• see document ‘use of basic plans’

2. apply Ngene for sequential & simultaneous construction of

choice sets
• & check correlations

• assignment & answers are on Brightspace

• access Ngene via weblogin (Citrix environment)

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 84

84
Questions?

stated choice
Regret experiments
in Traveler Decision Making 85
8
6

Assignment

• A bachelor thesis students intends to construct a simple SC

experiment that varies time (3 levels), costs (3 levels) and mode
(car & train). She considers the following two options:
• an unlabeled experiment
• a labeled experiment
• Explain to the student what the differences between the two
options are in terms of:
1. The number of choice sets needed
2. Construction method
3. Customizing attribute levels
4. Lay out of the alternatives in the choice set
5. Correlations between the attributes
6. The specification of the utility function: write down!
Regret in Traveler Decision Making 86
86
answer to assignment

1. BP 2 can be used for both

• both result in 9 choice sets
2. unlabeled: sequential
labeled: simultaneous
3. unlabeled: costs & time attribute of car
& train have the same levels
labeled: different levels may be selected
for car and train
4. lay out:

mode is attribute: mode is label

may have the same value each choice set: one car & one train alt.
Regret in Traveler Decision Making 87
values have same range ranges may differ between car & train 87
utility functions
5. correlations
• unlabeled: correlations between attributes of alts. 1 and 2
• labeled: all attributes are uncorrelated

6. utility functions
• unlabeled: generic parameters only (no constant)
• V1 = βT•Time + βC•Costs + βM•Mode
• V2 = βT•Time + βC•Costs + βM•Mode

• labeled: allows estimating alternative specific parameters:

• Vcar = Ccar + βT_car•Time + βC_car•Costs
• Vtrain βT_train•Time + βC_train•Costs

• Ccar = Constant = base utility of car compared to train

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 88
88
Appendix: some basic plans

stated choice
Regret experiments
in Traveler Decision Making 89
Basic plans 1, 2 & 3

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 90

90
 12 profiles

• 11 attributes
• 2 levels each

• masterplan 2

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 91

91
 18 profiles

• 7 attributes
• 3 levels each

• basic plan 4

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 92

92
 27 profiles

• 13 attributes
• 3 levels each

Regret in Traveler Decision Making 93

93