Understanding the decision-making process of choice modellers

TL;DR

This study uses a simulated choice modelling game to analyze how modellers make decisions during the process, revealing preferences, gaps, and variability in approaches that impact policy-relevant outcomes.

Contribution

It introduces the Serious Choice Modelling Game to observe real-time decision-making and highlights key behavioral patterns and variability in choice modelling workflows.

Findings

Preference for data visualization in descriptive analysis

Gaps in handling missing values before model specification

Significant variation in modelling approaches among participants

Abstract

Discrete Choice Modelling serves as a robust framework for modelling human choice behaviour across various disciplines. Building a choice model is a semi structured research process that involves a combination of a priori assumptions, behavioural theories, and statistical methods. This complex set of decisions, coupled with diverse workflows, can lead to substantial variability in model outcomes. To better understand these dynamics, we developed the Serious Choice Modelling Game, which simulates the real world modelling process and tracks modellers' decisions in real time using a stated preference dataset. Participants were asked to develop choice models to estimate Willingness to Pay values to inform policymakers about strategies for reducing noise pollution. The game recorded actions across multiple phases, including descriptive analysis, model specification, and outcome interpretation, allowing us to analyse both individual decisions and differences in modelling approaches. While our findings reveal a strong preference for using data visualisation tools in descriptive analysis, it also identifies gaps in missing values handling before model specification. We also found significant variation in the modelling approach, even when modellers were working with the same choice dataset. Despite the availability of more complex models, simpler models such as Multinomial Logit were often preferred, suggesting that modellers tend to avoid complexity when time and resources are limited. Participants who engaged in more comprehensive data exploration and iterative model comparison tended to achieve better model fit and parsimony, which demonstrate that the methodological choices made throughout the workflow have significant implications, particularly when modelling outcomes are used for policy formulation.