A New Model of Random Regret Minimization
Open accessAbstract
A new choice model is derived, rooted in the framework of Random Regret Minimization (RRM). The proposed model postulates that when choosing, people anticipate and aim to minimize regret. Whereas previous regret-based discrete choice-models assume that regret is experienced with respect to only the best of foregone alternatives, the proposed model assumes that regret is potentially experienced with respect to each foregone alternative that performs well. In contrast with earlier regret-based discrete-choice approaches, this model can be estimated using readily available discrete-choice software packages. The proposed model is contrasted theoretically and empirically with its natural counterpart, Random Utility Maximization’s linearadditive MNL-model. Empirical comparisons on four revealed and stated travel choice datasets show a promising performance of the RRM-model.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Models that explicitly consider risk-seeking vs. risk-avoiding behaviour, such as prospect and regret theory, have been explored recently in travel behaviour research.
“Models, which do explicitly consider risk-seeking vs. risk-avoiding behaviour, such as prospect and regret theory, have been explored recently in travel behaviour research”
From Activity-based models of travel demand: promises, progress and prospects (2014) · cites this paper as Chorus, 2010
The Introduction describes recent regret-based models of travel choice, including an approach developed for risky and riskless choices; the Abstract reports comparisons using travel-choice datasets. Our copy does not address prospect theory or establish that these models explicitly distinguish risk-seeking from risk-avoiding behaviour. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice Under Uncertainty
Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2232669 · Cited by 4,042 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 19
- Arentze, T.A., Oppewal, H. and Timmermans, H.J.P. (2005). A multipurpose shopping trip model to assess retail agglomeration effects. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 109-115. EJTIR 10(2), June 2010, pp. 181-196 Chorus 194
- A New Model of Random Regret Minimization Bell, D.E. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 961-981.
- Ben-Akiva, M. and Lerman, S.R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
- Chorus, C.G., Arentze, T.A., Molin, E.J.E., Timmermans, H.J.P. and van Wee, G.P. (2006a). The value of travel information: Decision-strategy specific conceptualizations and numerical examples. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 504-519.
- Chorus, C.G., Molin, E.J.E., van Wee, G.P., Arentze, T.A. and Timmermans, H.J.P. (2006b). Responses to transit information among car-drivers: Regret-based models and simulations. Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 249-271.
- Chorus, C.G., Molin, E.J.E., Arentze, T.A., Hoogendoorn, S.P., Timmermans, H.J.P. and van Wee, G.P. (2007). Validation of a multimodal travel simulator with travel information provision. Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 191-207.
- Chorus, C.G., Arentze, T.A. and Timmermans, H.J.P. (2008). A Random Regret Minimization model of travel choice. Transportation Research Part B, 42(1), pp. 1-18.
- Chorus, C.G., Arentze, T.A. and Timmermans, H.J.P. (2009). Spatial choice: A matter of utility or regret? Environment and Planning Part B, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 538-551.
- Connolly, T. and Reb, J. (2005). Regret in cancer-related decisions. Health Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 29-34.
- Hensher, D.A. (2009). Attribute processing, heuristics, and preference construction in choice analysis. Invited plenary paper for the First International Conference on Choice Analysis, Harrogate, UK, March 29 - April 3, 2009.
- Kivetz, R., Netzer, O. and Srinivasan, V. (2004). Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41, pp. 237-257.
- Molin, E.J.E., Chorus, C.G. and van Sloten, R. (2009). The need for advanced Public Transport information services when making transfers. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 397-410.
- Savage, Leonard J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. New York, Wiley.
- Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 158-174.
- Simonson, I. (1992). The influence of anticipating regret and responsibility on purchasing decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 105-119.
- Starver, T. (2008). Anticipating regret: Why fewer options may be better. Econometrica, Vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 263-305.
- Van der Waerden, P., Borgers, A. and Timmermans, H.J.P. (2008). Modeling parking choice behavior in business areas. Paper presented at the 87 th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C. Wernerfelt, B. (1995). A rational reconstruction of the compromise effect: Using market data to infer utilities. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 627-633.
- Zeelenberg, M. (1999). The use of crying over spilled milk: A note on the rationality and functionality of regret. Philosophical Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 325-340.
- Zeelenberg, M. and Pieters, R. (2007). A theory of regret regulation 1.0. Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 3-18.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Activity-based models of travel demand: promises, progress and prospects
Rasouli, S., & Timmermans, H. (2014) · International Journal of Urban Sciences · doi:10.1080/12265934.2013.835118 · Cited by 321 · see citing works
Cognitive bias and how to improve sustainable decision making
Korteling, J. E. (., Paradies, G. L., & Sassen-van Meer, J. P. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1129835 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chorus, C. G.
- Affiliations
- Delft University of Technology (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Chorus, Caspar G.
- ORCID
- Chorus, Caspar G.
- Venue
- European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research
- Publisher
- TU Delft OPEN Publishing
- Published
- 2010-06-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 1567-7133 (ISSN-L)
- 1567-7141
- OpenAlex
- W2138790218
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 29.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- European journal of transport and infrastructure research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Repository hosted by TU Delft Library (TU Delft) (submittedVersion)
- Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
- Social Sciences › Transportation › Transportation Planning and Optimization
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- random regret minimization, discrete choice models, random utility maximization, multinomial logistic regression, travel choice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
