Robustness of RRM modelling outcomes towards omitted attributes
As discrete choice models may be misspecified, it is crucial for
choice modellers to have knowledge on the robustness of their
modelling outcomes towards misspecification. One type of model
misspecification occurs when not all attributes that are relevant
for the choice are included in the choice model. Such omission of
attributes may result in larger finite sample bias, possibly
leading to erroneous modelling outcomes such as poor market share
forecasts and inaccurate estimates of demand elasticities.
The robustness of RUM-based choice modelling outcomes towards the
omission of a relevant attribute has frequently been studied.
Contrary to RUM-based choice modelling outcomes however, the
robustness of RRM-based choice modelling outcomes towards the
omission of a relevant attribute has not been studied. Questions
such as “are RRM modelling outcomes relatively less robust towards
omitted attributes as compared to RUM modelling outcomes, e.g. due
to the fact that RRM models account for context effects?”, or “are
RRM relatively robust towards one sort of omitted attribute, but
little robust towards another?” are yet unanswered. This lack of
understanding currently hampers adequate interpretation of RRM
modelling outcomes.
To investigate the robustness of RRM modelling outcomes towards
the omission of a relevant attribute we conducted several Monte
Carlo experiments. Acknowledging that in real life the ‘true’
decision rule is inherently unknown to the choice modeller,
choices are generated based on RUM and RRM. Furthermore, to
enhance the interpretation of the results, we investigated the
effects of the omitted attribute on the robustness of the RRM
modelling results alongside with the effects of the omitted
attribute on the robustness of the RUM modelling results
In particular, the impacts of the omitted attribute on implied
elastcities are explored.
Main Findings
RRM models are found to be fairly robust towards the presence of
an orthogonal omitted attribute, though not as robust as the
linear-additive RUM model. The differences in robustness between
the RUM and RRM models are however quite subtle, and occur only in
the quite stylized situation in which the omitted attribute is
orthogonal. Considering the fact that regret is conceived to
emerge in a more complex way than utilities, this results seem
intuitive. See
Van Cranenburgh, S. & Prato, C.G. (2016)
for more details on this study.