Regional Patterns of Urban Development and Travel Behaviour: It's a matter of proximity in addition to choice

A study of residential location and transport in three provincial counties in Denmark shows that residential location affects the travel behavior of households, and that this affect is still apparent when various socioeconomic characteristics of the households are taken into consideration. The study also shows, that the spatial distribution or geographical spread as well as the size of the different urban centers in the three counties play a significant role in explaining the travel and transport behavior of individual households. Theoretical and empirical evidence from a recent study into the relationship between the residential location and distance to urban centers the Copenhagen metropolitan area shows that individuals emphasize choice rather than proximity to the urban centers for most travel purposes. Thus, as a result, the travel behaviour of households and individuals is primarily influenced by the location of the residence in relation to downtown Copenhagen, whereas the location of the residence in relation to lower-order centers with lower concentrations of facilities only to lesser degree has a bearing on the travel behaviour of households and individuals. The same influence of the distance to urban centers with the highest concentration of facilities seems to apply to households in three provincial counties of Denmark, but in contrast to the metropolitan area of Copenhagen, no single urban center in each of the three counties asserts enough of an influence on the travel behaviour to stand alone. Although cities like Holstebro in the county of Ringkoebing, and Aalborg in the county of North Jutland have a significant effect on travel behaviour, it seems that the location of the residence in relation to a conglomeration of 1st order urban centers in each of the provincial counties is needed to describe the relationship between residential location and regional patterns of urban development

The Critical Importance of Construct Measurement Specification: A Response to Aguirre-Urreta and Marakas

Aguirre-Urreta and Marakas (A&M) suggest in their simulation “Revisiting Bias Due to Construct Misspecification: Different Results from Considering Coefficients in Standardized Form,” that, like Jarvis et al. (2003), MacKenzie et al. (2005), and Petter et al. (2007) before them, bias does occur when formative constructs are misspecified as reflective. But A&M argue that the level of bias in prior simulation studies has been exaggerated. They parameterize their simulation models using standardized coefficients in contrast to Jarvis et al., MacKenzie et al., and Petter et al., who parameterize their simulation models using unstandardized coefficients. Thus, across these four simulation studies, biases in parameter estimates are likely to result in misspecified measurement models (i.e., using either unstandardized or standardized coefficients); yet, the biases are greater in magnitude when unstandardized coefficients are used to parameterize the misspecified model. We believe that regardless of the extent of the bias, it is critically important for researchers to achieve correspondence between the measurement specification and the conceptual meaning of the construct so as to not alter the theoretical meaning of the construct at the operational layer of the model. Such alignment between theory and measurement will safeguard against threats to construct and statistical conclusion validity. This article is a response to the article by Miguel Aguirre-Urreta and George Marakas, Revisiting Bias Due to Construct Misspecification: Different Results from Considering Coefficients in Standardized Form, and is included in the purchase of that article

Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Systems Research

While researchers go to great lengths to justify and prove theoretical links between constructs, the relationship between measurement items and constructs is often ignored. By default, the relationship between construct and item is assumed to be reflective, meaning that the measurement items are a reflection of the construct. Many times, though, the nature of the construct is not reflective, but rather formative. Formative constructs occur when the items describe and define the construct rather than vice versa.In this research, we examine whether formative constructs are indeed being mistaken for reflective constructs by information systems researchers. By examining complete volumes of MIS Quarterly and Information Systems Research over the last 3 years, we discovered that a significant number of articles have indeed misspecified formative constructs. For scientific results to be valid, we argue that researchers must properly specify formative constructs. This paper discusses the implications of different patterns of common misspecifications of formative constructs on both Type I and Type II errors. To avoid these errors, the paper provides a roadmap to researchers to properly specify formative constructs. We also discuss how to address formative constructs within a research model after they are specified

The right face at the wrong place: How motor intentions can override outcome monitoring

The concept of intentions is often taken for granted in the cognitive and neural sciences, and comparing outcomes with internal goals is seen as critical for our sense of agency. We created an experiment where participants decided which face they preferred, and we either created outcome errors by covertly switch- ing the position of the chosen face or induced motor errors by deviating the mouse cursor, or we did both at the same time. In the final case, participants experienced a motor error, but the outcome ended up cor- rect. The result showed that when they received the right face, but at the wrong place, participants re- jected the outcome they actually wanted in a majority of the trials. Thus, contrary to common belief, higher-order outcomes do not always regulate our actions. Instead, motor ‘‘wrongness’’ might sometimes override goal ‘‘rightness’’ and lead us to reject the outcome we actually want

The networked seceder model: Group formation in social and economic systems

The seceder model illustrates how the desire to be different than the average can lead to formation of groups in a population. We turn the original, agent based, seceder model into a model of network evolution. We find that the structural characteristics our model closely matches empirical social networks. Statistics for the dynamics of group formation are also given. Extensions of the model to networks of companies are also discussed