Interrogation of responses to stated choice experiments: Is there sense in what respondents tell us? A closer look at what respondents choose and process heuristics used in stated choice experiments

Journal of Choice Modelling

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 62-89

  Hensher, David A ^a   Collins, Andrew T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Attribute processing; Choice experiments; Evidential rules; Heuristics; Majority of confirming dimensions; Plausible choice; Reference revision; Referencing; Sequence effects; Value learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880538413     PISSN: 17555345     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70019-8     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Akaike, H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19 (6) 716-723.
2. Bateman, I. J., R. T. Carson, B. Day, D. Dupont, J. J. Louviere, S. Morimoto, R. Scarpa and P. Wang (2008) Choice set awareness and ordering effects in discrete choice experiments, CSERGE Working Paper EDM 08-01.
3. Cameron, T. A. and J. R. DeShazo (2010) Differential attention to attributes in utility-theoretic choice models, Journal of Choice Modelling, 3 (3) 73-115.
4. Chorus, C. G. (2010) Random regret minimization: an improved model form and comparisons with the multinomial logit model, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
5. Day B. and J. L. Pinto (2010) Ordering anomalies in choice experiments, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59 (3) 271-285.
6. Day B., I. J. Bateman, R. T. Carson, D. Dupont, J. J. Louviere, S. Morimoto, R. Scarpa and P. Wang. 2009. Task independence in stated preference studies: a test of order effect explanations, CSERGE Working Paper EDM 09-14.
7. DeShazo J. R. 2002. Designing transactions without framing effects in iterative question formats, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43 (3) 360-385.
8. Fiebig, D., M. Keane, J. J. Louviere and N. Wasi. 2010. The generalized multinomial logit: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity, Marketing Science, 29 (3) 393-412.
9. Gilbride, T. J. and G. M. Allenby. 2004. A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules, Marketing Science, 23 (3) 391-406. (Pubitemid 39332888)
10. Greene, W. H. and D. A. Hensher. 2010. Does scale heterogeneity matter? A comparative assessment of logit models, Transportation, 37 (3) 413-428.
11. Haaijer, R., K. Wagner and M. Wedel. 2000. Response latencies in the analysis of conjoint choice experiments, Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (3) 376-382.
12. Hensher, D. A. 2010 Attribute processing, heuristics and preference construction in choice analysis, in Hess, S. and A. Daly (eds.) State-of Art and State-of Practice in Choice Modelling, Emerald Press, U.K., 35-70.
13. Hensher, D. A. and W. H. Greene. 2010. Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: a latent class specification, Empirical Economics, 39 (2) 413-426.
14. Hensher, D. A., W. H. Greene and C. Chorus. 2010. Random regret minimisation or random utility maximisation: an exploratory analysis in the context of automobile fuel choice, submitted to Journal of Advanced Transportation.
15. Hess, S. and D. A. Hensher. 2010. Using conditioning on observed choices to retrieve individual-specific attribute processing strategies, Transportation Research Part B, 44 (6) 781-90.
16. Kahneman D. and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk, Econometrica, 47 (2) 263-291.
17. Krinsky I. and A. L. Robb. 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 68 (4) 715-719.
18. Lancsar, E. and J. J. Louviere. 2006. Deleting "irrational" responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?, Health Economics, 15 (8) 797-811. (Pubitemid 44184131)
19. Louviere, J. J., D. A. Hensher and J. D. Swait. 2000. Stated Choice Methods and Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
20. McNair, B. J., J. Bennett and D. A. Hensher. 2010a. A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions, Resource and Energy Economics, published on line http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2010.12.003
21. McNair B. J., D. A. Hensher and J. Bennett. 2010b. Modelling heterogeneity in response behaviour towards a sequence of discrete choice questions: a latent class approach, Occasional Paper #16, Crawford School of Economics and Government, The Australian National University, Canberra.
22. Puckett, S., D. A. Hensher, J. M. Rose and A. Collins. 2007. Design and development of a stated choice experiment in a two-agent setting: interactions between buyers and sellers of urban freight services, Transportation, 34 (4) 429-451. (Pubitemid 47023687)
23. Rose, J. M. and M. C. J. Bliemer. 2008. Stated preference experimental design strategies, in Hensher, D. A. and K. J. Button (eds.) Handbook of Transport Modelling, Oxford, Elsevier, 151-179.
24. Rose, J. M. and I. Black. 2006. Means matter, but variance matter too: decomposing response latency influences on variance heterogeneity in stated preference experiments, Marketing Letters, 17 (4) 295-310. (Pubitemid 44199896)
25. Russo, J. E. and B. A. Dosher. 1983. Strategies for multiattribute binary choice, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 9 (4) 676-696.
26. Scarpa, R., D. Campbell and W. G. Hutchinson. 2007. Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: sequential bayesian design and respondents" rationality in a choice experiment study, Land Economics, 83 (4) 617-634.
27. Swait, J. D. 2009. Choice models based on mixed discrete/continuous PDFs, Transportation Research Part B, 43 (7) 766-783.