Modelling Heterogeneity in Response Behaviour Towards a Sequence of Discrete Choice Questions: A Probabilistic Decision Process Model

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 51, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 599-616

  McNair, Ben J ^a   Hensher, David A ^b   Bennett, Jeff ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Decision process; Ordering effects; Strategic response; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; DECISION PROCESS; ORDERING EFFECTS; STRATEGIC RESPONSE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

HEURISTIC METHODS;

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; HETEROGENEITY; NUMERICAL MODEL; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 84858159651     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-011-9514-6     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Araña JE, León CJ, Hanemann MW (2008) Emotions and decision rules in discrete choice experiments for valuing health care programmes for the elderly. J Health Econ 27: 753-769.
2. Ariely D, Loewenstein D, Prelec D (2003) 'Coherent arbitrariness': stable demand curves without stable preferences. Q J Econ 118(1): 73-105.
3. Bateman IJ, Burgess D, Hutchinson WG, Matthews DI (2008a) Learning design contingent valuation: national oceanic and atmospheric administration guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. J Environ Econ Manage 55: 127-141.
4. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Dupont D, Louviere JJ, Morimoto S, Scarpa R et al (2008b) Choice set awareness and ordering effects in discrete choice experiments. CSERGE working paper EDM 08-01.
5. Beenstock M, Goldin E, Haitovsky Y (1998) Response bias in conjoint analysis of power outages. Energy Econ 20: 135-156.
6. Bennett J, Blamey R (2001) The choice modeling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
7. Boyle KJ, Bishop RC, Welsh MP (1985) Starting point bias in contingent valuation bidding games. Land Econ 61: 188-194.
8. Bradley M, Daly A (1994) Use of the logit scaling approach to test for rank-order and fatigue effects in stated preference data. Transportation 21(2): 167-184.
9. Braga J, Starmer C (2005) Preference anomolies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environ Resour Econ 32: 55-89.
10. Cameron TA, Quiggin J (1994) Estimation using contingent valuation data from a "dichotomous choice with follow-up" questionnaire. J Environ Econ Manag 27: 218-234.
11. Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2008a) Does it matter when a power outage occurs? A choice experiment study on the WTP to avoid power outages. Energy Econ 30(3): 1232-1245.
12. Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2008b) How much is too much? An investigation of the effect of the number of choice sets, starting point and the choice of bid vectors in choice experiments. Environ Resour Econ 40(2): 165-176.
13. Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37: 181-210.
14. Carson RT, Groves T, List J, Machina M (2004) Probabilistic influence and supplemental benefits: a field test of the two key assumptions behind using stated preferences. Paper presented at NBER Public Economics Workshop, Palo Alto.
15. Carson KS, Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG (2009) Necessary conditions for demand revelation in double referenda. J Environ Econ Manag 57(2): 219-225.
16. Caussade S, Ortuzar JD, Rizzi LI, Hensher DA (2005) Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Trans Res Part B 39: 621-640.
17. Day B, Pinto JL (2010) Ordering anomalies in choice experiments. J Environ Econ Manag 59(3): 271-285.
18. Day B, Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Dupont D, Louviere JJ, Morimoto S, Scarpa R et al (2009) Task independence in stated preference studies: a test of order effect explanations. CSERGE working paper EDM 09-14.
19. DeShazo JR (2002) Designing transactions without framing effects in iterative question formats. J Environ Econ Manag 43: 360-385.
20. Hanemann WM, Loomis J, Kanninen B (1991) Statistical efficiency of double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 73: 1255-1263.
21. Hensher DA, Collins AT (2010) Interrogation of responses to stated choice experiments: is there sense in what respondents tell us?. J Choice Model 4: 62-89.
22. Hensher DA, Greene WH (2010) Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: a latent class specification. Empir Econ 39(2): 413-426.
23. Hensher DA, Truong TP (1985) Valuation of travel time savings: a direct experimental approach. J Trans Econ Policy 19(3): 237-261.
24. Herriges JA, Shogren JF (1996) Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. J Environ Econ Manag 30: 112-131.
25. Holmes T, Boyle KJ (2005) Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based stated-preference valuation questions. Land Econ 81: 114-126.
26. Hurwicz L (1972) On informationally decentralized systems. In: McGuire CB, Radner R (eds) Decision and organisation. University of Minnesota Press, North-Holland.
27. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47: 263-291.
28. Ladenburg J, Olsen SB (2008) Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: evidence from an empirical study. J Environ Econ Manag 56: 275-285.
29. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA (1983) Using discrete choice models with experimental design data to forecast consumer demand for a unique cultural event. J Consum Res 10(December): 348-361.
30. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P (eds) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York.
31. McNair BJ, Bennett J, Hensher DA (2011a) A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions. Resour Energy Econ 33: 554-571.
32. McNair BJ, Bennett J, Hensher DA, Rose JM (2011b) Households' willingness to pay for overhead-to-underground conversion of electricity distribution networks. Energy Policy 39: 2560-2567.
33. Mirrlees J (1971) An exploration in the theory of optimal income taxation. Rev Econ Stud 38: 175-208.
34. NERA Economic Consulting and ACNielsen (2003) Willingness to pay research study. A report for ACTEW Corporation and ActewAGL, September.
35. Plott CR (1996) Rational individual behavior in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis. In: Arrow K, Colombatto E, Perleman M, Schmidt C (eds) Rational foundations of economic behavior. Macmillan, London.
36. Samuelson PA (1954) The pure theory of public expenditure. Rev Econ Stat 36: 387-389.
37. Scarpa R, Rose J (2008) Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 52(3): 253-282.
38. Scarpa R, Gilbride TJ, Campbell D, Hensher DA (2009) Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation. Eur Rev Agric Econ 36(2): 151-174.
39. Zellman E, Kaye-Blake W, Abell W (2010) Identifying consumer decision-making strategies using alternative methods. Qual Market Res 13: 271-286.