Design strategies for sequential choice experiments involving economic alternatives

Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference

Volumn 136, Issue 9, 2006, Pages 3287-3306

  Raghavarao, Damaraju ^a   Wiley, James B ^b  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Attributes; Choice experiments; Factorial experiments; Interactions

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646528235     PISSN: 03783758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jspi.2004.12.006     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Adamowicz W.P., Boxall M., and Williams M. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments versus contingent valuation. Amer. J. Agric. Econom. 80 (1988) 64-75
2. Berkum E.E.M.Van. Optimal paired comparison designs for factorial and quadratic models. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 15 (1987) 265-278
3. Berkum E.E.M.Van. Reduction of the number of pairs in paired comparison designs and exact designs for quadratic models. Comput. Statist. Data Anal. 8 (1989) 93-107
4. Brandley M.A., and Gunn H. Stated preference analysis of values of travel time in the Netherlands. Transportation Res. Rec. 1285 (1990) 78-89
5. Bullock C.H., Elston D.A., and Chalmers N.A. An application of economic experiments to a land-use, deer hunting, and landscape change in the Scottish highlands. J. Environ. Manage. 52 (1998) 335-351
6. k choice experiments. Commun. Statist.-Theory Methods 32 (2003) 2185-2206
7. Cooper L., and Nakanishi M. Market Share Analysis: Evaluating Competitive Marketing Effectiveness (1988), Liuwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA
8. DeShazo J.R., and Fermo G. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J. Environ. Econom. Manage. 44 (2002) 123-143
9. Dhar R. Consumer preference for a no-choice option. J. Consumer Res. 24 (1997) 215-231
10. Fowkes T., and Wardman M. The design of stated preference travel choice experiments. J. Transport Econom. Policy 13 1 (1988) 27-44
11. Grasshoff U., Grossmann H., Holling H., and Schwabe R. Optimal paired comparison designs for first-order interactions. Statistics 37 (2003) 373-386
12. Grasshoff, U., Grossmann, H., Holling H., Schwabe, R., 2004. Optimal designs for main effects in linear paired comparison models. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 126, 361-376.
13. Green P.E., and Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing research: new developments and directions. J. Market. 54 4 (1990) 3-19
14. Green P.E., Helsen K., and Shandler B. Conjoint internal validity under alternative profile presentations. J. Consumer Res. 15 (1988) 392-397
15. Grossman, H., Holling, H., Schwabe, R., 2002. Advances in optimum experimental design for conjoint analysis and discrete choice models. In: Franses, P.H. Montgomery, A.L. (Eds.), Advances in Econometrics, vol. 16, Econometric Models In Marketing. JAI Press, Amsterdam, pp. 93-117.
16. Haaifer R., Kamakura W., and Wedel M. The 'no-choice' alternative in conjoint choice experiments. Internat. J. Market Res. 43 1 (2001) 93-106
17. Haider W., and Ewing G.O. A model of tourist choices of hypothetical Caribbean destination. Leisure Sci. 12 (1990) 33-47
18. Hausman J., and Wise D.A. A conditional probit model for qualitative choice: Discrete decisions recognizing independence and heterogeneous preferences. Econometrika 46 (1978) 403-426
19. Hencher D.A., Barnard P., Milthorpe F., and Smith N. Urban tollways and the valuation of travel time savings. Econom. Rec. 66 193 (1989) 146-156
20. Huber, J., Hansen, D., 1986. Testing the impact of dimensional complexity and affective differences of paired concepts in adaptive conjoint analysis. In: Wallendorf, M., Anderson, P. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 14. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 159-163.
21. Huber J., and Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Market. Res. 33 3 (1996) 307-317
22. Johnson, R.M., Olberts, K.A., 1991. Using conjoint analysis in pricing studies: is one price variable enough?," American Marketing Association Advanced Research Technique Forum Conference Proceedings, pp. 164-173.
23. Johnson, E.J., Meyer, R.J., Ghose, S., 1986. When choice models fail: compensatory representations in efficient sets. Working paper, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, p. 15213.
24. Kamakura W.A., and Srivastava R.K. Predicting choice shares under conditions of brand interdependence. J. Market. Res. 21 (1984) 420-434
25. Koelemeijer K., and Oppewal H. Assessing the effects of assortment and ambience: a choice experimental approach. J. Retailing 75 3 (1999) 319-345
26. Kuhfeld, W., 2003. Multinomial logit discrete choice modelling. http://support.sas.com/techsup/tnote/tnote_stat.html.
27. Louviere J., Hencher D.A., and Swait J.D. Stated Choice Models: Analysis and Application (2000), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
28. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice analysis. In: Zarembka P. (Ed). Frontiers in Econometrics (1974), Academic Press, New York 105-142
29. McFadden, D., 2000. Disaggregate Behavioral Travel Demand's RUM Side: A 30-year Restrospective, March 2000, unpublished manuscript presented at the International Association for Travel. Behavior (IATBR) Conference, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, July 2-7, 42pp.
30. Moore W.L., Louviere J.J., and Verma R. Using conjoint analysis to help design product platforms. J. Product Innovation Manage. 16 1 (1999) 27-39
31. Oppewal H., Louviere J.J., and Timmermans H. Modeling hierarchical conjoint processes with integrated choice experiments. J. Market. Res. 31 (1994) 92-105
32. Oppewal H., Louviere J.J., and Timmermans H. Modelling the effects of shopping centre size and store variety on consumer choice behaviour. Environ. Plann. A 29 (1997) 1073-1090
33. Oppewal H., Louviere J.J., and Timmermans H. Modifying conjoint methods to model managers' reactions to business environmental trends: An application to modeling retailer reactions to sales trends. J. Bus. Res. 50 3 (2000) 45-257
34. Propper C. The disutility of time spent on the United Kingdom's national health service waiting lists. J. Human Resourc. 30 (1995) 677-700
35. Raghavarao D., and Wiley J.B. Estimating main effects with pareto optimal subsets. Australian J. Statist. 40 4 (1998) 425-432
36. Ryan M., and Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. British Med. J. 320 (2000) 1530-1533
37. Sawtooth Software, 1996. The CBC system for choice-based conjoint analysis. http://sawtoothsoftware.com/techabs.shtml#cbctech.
38. k paired comparison designs for partial profiles. In: Stulajter, F., Wimmer, G. (Eds.), PROBASTAT2002. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Mathematical Statistics, Smolenice, 2002. Tatra Mountains Mathematical Publications 26, 79-86.
39. Street D.J., and Burgess L. Optimal and near-optimal pairs for the estimation of effects in 2-level choice experiments. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 118 (2004) 185-199
40. Varian, H.R., 1987. Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach. 3rd ed., W.W. Norton & Company: New York.
41. Waerden, P. van der, Oppewal, H., Timmermans H., 1993. Adaptive choice behaviour of motorists in congested shopping centre parking lots. Transportation 20, 395-408.
42. Wiley, J.B., 1978. Selecting pareto optimal subsets from multi-attribute alternatives. In: Hunt, K. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, vol. V. Chicago, IL, pp. 171-174.
43. Zhang, D., 2001. Pareto optimal designs in behavioral experiments. Ph.D. Thesis, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA.