This study demonstrates a process-oriented approach to the analysis of decision making through the example of the interactive route choice problem. The core of the work consists in the design of the methodological framework, combining the psychological research method of thinking aloud for acquisition of data concerning cognitive processes generated in the course of decision making and the method of semantic content analysis for their processing and for drawing inferences. Results show that the process-oriented analysis of decision making has the potential to disclose facts hidden beyond the observed behavior. The analysis of process data obtained during laboratory experiments showed that the set of strategies applied by subjects is much more diverse than is assumed in most existing models of route choice. Subjects compared travel times on alternate routes to choose the fastest one, updated actual travel times by exploratory route switching, insisted on habitual choice of one route, anticipated choices of others to get to the minority side, and so forth. These results suggest that the diversity in observed behavior may be to some extent caused by the diversity in individual portfolios of applied choice strategies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
McFaddenD.Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In Frontiers of Econometrics (ZarembkaP., ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1974, pp. 105–142.
2.
Ben-AkivaM., and LermanS.Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand.MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.
3.
NakayamaS., and KitamuraR.Route Choice Model with Inductive Learning. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1725, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 63–70.
4.
BazzanA. L. C., BordiniR. H., AndriotiG. K., VicariR. M., and WahleJ.Wayward Agents in a Commuting Scenario (Personalities in the Minority Game). Proc., Fourth International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, 2000, pp. 55–62.
5.
AvineriE., and PrashkerJ. N.Sensitivity to Uncertainty: Need for a Paradigm Shift. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1854, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 90–98.
6.
SenbilM., and KitamuraR.Reference Points in Commuter Departure Time Choice: A Prospect Theoretic Test of Alternative Decision Frames. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2004, pp. 19–31.
7.
ArentzeT. A., and TimmermansH.Modeling Learning and Adaptation Processes in Activity-Travel Choice: A Framework and Numerical Experiments. Transportation, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2003, pp. 37–62.
8.
Ben-AkivaM., and BierlaireM.Discrete Choice Methods and Their Application to Short Term Travel Decisions. In Handbook of Transportation Science (HallR. W., ed.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999, pp. 5–34.
9.
HorowitzJ. L.The Stability of Stochastic Equilibrium in a Two-Link Transportation Network. Transportation Research, Vol. 18B, No. 1, 1984, pp. 13–28.
10.
IidaY., AkiyamaT., and UchidaT.Experimental Analysis of Dynamic Route Choice Behavior. Transportation Research, Vol. 26B, No. 1, 1992, pp. 17–32.
11.
Ben-AkivaM., De PalmaA., and KaysiI.Dynamic Network Models and Driver Information Systems. Transportation Research, Vol. 24B, No. 5, 1991, pp. 251–266.
12.
JotisankasaA., and PolakJ. W.Framework for Travel Time Learning and Behavioral Adaptation in Route and Departure Time Choice. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1985, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 231–240.
13.
JhaM., MadanatS., and PeetaS.Perception Updating and Day-to-Day Travel Choice Dynamics in Traffic Networks with Information Provision. Transportation Research, Vol. 6C, No. 3, 1998, pp. 189–212.
14.
ChorusC., ArentzeT. A., and TimmermansH. J. P.General Model of Bayesian Travel Time Learning.Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
15.
ChenR., and MahmassaniH. S.Travel Time Perception and Learning Mechanisms in Traffic Networks. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1894, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 209–221.
16.
KobayashiK.Information, Rational Expectations and Network Equilibria: An Analytical Perspective for Route Guidance Systems. Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1994, pp. 369–393.
17.
EmmerinkR., VerhoefE. T., NijkampP., and RietveldP.Information Effects in Transport with Stochastic Capacity and Uncertainty Costs. International Economic Review, Vol. 39, No. 1, 1998, pp. 157–183.
18.
NakayamaS., KitamuraR., and FujiiS.Drivers’ Route Choice Rules and Network Behavior: Do Drivers Become Rational and Homogenous Through Learning? In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1752, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 62–68.
19.
SuttonR. S., and BartoA. G.Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction.MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2004.
20.
HelbingD.Dynamic Decision Behaviour and Optimal Guidance Through Information Services: Models and Experiments. In Human Behaviour and Traffic Networks (SchreckenbergM. and SeltenR., eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004, pp. 47–97.
21.
ChmuraT., PitzT., and SchreckenbergM.Minority Game: Experiments and Simulations. In Traffic and Granular Flow ‘03 (HoogendoornS. P., LudingS., BovyP., and SchreckenbergM., eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005, pp. 305–316.
22.
SeltenR., ChmuraT., PitzT., KubecS., and SchreckenbergM.Commuters’ Route Choice Behaviour. Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 58, No. 2, 2007, pp. 394–406.
23.
Hayes-RothB., and Hayes-RothF.A Cognitive Model of Planning. Cognitive Science, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1979, pp. 275–310.
24.
ChenC., GärlingT., and KitamuraR.Activity Rescheduling: Reasoned or Habitual?Transportation Research, Vol. 7F, No. 6, 2004, pp. 351–371.
25.
BurnettP.Variable Decision Strategies, Rational Choice, and Situation-Related Travel Demand. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 40, No. 9, 2008, pp. 2259–2281.
26.
ChalméS., VisserW., and DenisM.Cognitive Effects of Environmental Knowledge on Urban Route Planning Strategies. In Traffic and Transport Psychology (RothengatterT. and HugueninD., eds.), Elsevier, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2007, pp. 61–71.
27.
EricssonK. A., and SimonH. A.Verbal Reports as Data. Psychological Review, Vol. 87, No. 3, 1980, pp. 215–251.
28.
NisbettR., and WilsonT.Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes. Psychological Review, Vol. 84, No. 3, 1977, pp. 231–259.
29.
HelbingD., SchönhofM., StarkH. U., and HolystJ. A.How Individuals Learn to Take Turns: Emergence of Alternating Cooperation in a Congestion Game and the Prisoner's Dilemma. Advances in Complex Systems, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2005, pp. 87–116.
30.
FischbacherU.z-Tree: Zurich Toolbox for Ready-Made Economic Experiments. Experimental Economics, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2007, pp. 171–178.
31.
KrippendorffK.Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology.Sage Publications, London, 2004.
32.
UllmanM. T.The Biocognition of the Mental Lexicon. In Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (GaskellM. G. and AltmannG., eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 2007, pp. 267–288.
33.
ChomskyN.Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1992.
34.
FillmoreJ.The Case for Case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory (BachE. W., HarmsR. T., and FillmoreJ., eds.), Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1968, pp. 81–96.
35.
RobertsC. W.Semantic Text Analysis: On the Structure of Linguistic Ambiguity in Ordinary Discourse. In Text Analysis for the Social Sciences: Methods for Drawing Statistical Inferences from Texts and Transcripts (RobertsC. W., ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J., 1997, pp. 55–78.
36.
FranzosiR.From Words to Numbers: A Generalized and Linguistics-Based Coding Procedure for Collecting Textual Data. Sociological Methodology, Vol. 19, 1989, pp. 263–298.
37.
CookW. A.Case Grammar Applied.Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas, Arlington, 1998.
38.
HanQ., DellaertB., van RaaijV., and TimmermansH.Modelling Strategic Behaviour in Anticipation of Congestion. Transportmetrica, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2007, pp. 119–138.
39.
BradleyM.Process Data for Understanding and Modelling Travel Behaviour. In Travel Survey Methods: Quality and Future Directions (StecherS., ed.), Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, United Kingdom, 2006, pp. 491–510.
40.
PendyalaR., and BrickaS.Collection and Analysis of Behavioural Process Data: Challenges and Opportunities. In Travel Survey Methods: Quality and Future Directions (StecherS., ed.), Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, United Kingdom, 2006, pp. 511–530.
