This paper describes how rational choice has been criticized in diverse fields, including behavioral economics and cognitive psychology, for the past thirty years. It also describes how there has also been interest in non-utility-maximizing behavior in travel demand for almost as long. However, choice heuristics (counting, lexicographic, elimination by aspects, conjunctive, affective, take the best and so on) are still not well integrated in the transportation literature, despite current interest in them, for example, in consumer research. Nor are the effects of context|situation well examined. This paper poses 14 illustrative hypotheses about compensatory and other decision rules for the situations choice of shopping tour, choice of shopping trip for clothing and groceries, and choice of shopping trip for regional malls and lower order centers. The hypotheses are tested using verbal protocol data from 55 MIT students. Low-level statistical tests are also used. Verbal protocol analysis is scrutinized briefly. The findings point to the facts that, although many of the hypotheses are not upheld, multiple different rules, sometimes including compensatory ones, are important in different situations. Since the paper advocates in conclusion realistic assumptions in theoretical work, rather than assumptions which mimic or abstract from them, the results suggest a complex trajectory for future analysis. The change in theoretical direction and scale provides a counterpoint to current research and practical paradigms.
Abstract