Are results from non-hypothetical choice-based conjoint analyses and non-hypothetical recoded-ranking conjoint analyses similar?

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 95, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 949-963

  Akaichi, Faical ^a   Nayga, Rodolfo M ^b   Gil, José M ^c  

^a SCOTTISH AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

Author keywords

conjoint analysis; non hypothetical settings; small and large choice sets

Indexed keywords

PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; PUBLIC GOODS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 84880543677     PISSN: 00029092     EISSN: 14678276     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ajae/aat013     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Allenby, G. M., N. Arora, and J. L. Ginter. 1995. Incorporating Prior Knowledge Into the Analysis of Conjoint Studies. Journal of Marketing Research 32 (2): 152-162.
2. Allenby, GM., N. Arora, and J. L. Ginter. 1998. On the Heterogeneity of Demand. Journal of Marketing Research 35 (3): 384-389.
3. Allenby, G. M., and J. L. Ginter. 1995. Using Extremes to Design Products and Segment Markets. Journal of Marketing Research 32 (4): 392-403.
4. Ben-Akiva, M., T. Morikawa, F. Shiroishi. 1992. Analysis of the Reliability of Preference Ranking Data. Journal of Business Research 24 (2): 149-164.
5. Boyle, K. J., T. P. Holmes, M. F. Teisl, and B. Roe. 2001. A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83 (2): 441-454.
6. Bunch, D. S., J. J. Louviere, and D. Anderson. 1996.A Comparison of Experimental Design Strategies for Multinomial Logit Models: The Case of Generic Attributes. Working paper UCD-GSM-WP# 011-96. University of California, Davis. http://faculty. gsm. ucdavis. edu/∼bunch/.
7. Caparrós A., J. L. Oviedo, and P. Campos. 2008. Would You Choose Your Preferred Option? Comparing Choice and Recoded Ranking Experiments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90 (3): 843-855.
8. Carson, R. T., J. J. Louviere, D. Anderson, P. Arabie, D. S. Bunch, D. A. Hensher, R. M. Johnson, et al. 1994. Experimental Analysis of Choice. Marketing Letters 5 (4): 351-368.
9. Chang, J. B., J. Lusk, and F. B. Norwood. 2009. How Closely Do Hypothetical Surveys and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91 (2): 518-534.
10. Chernev, A. 2003. When More Is Less and Less Is More: The Role of Ideal Point Availability and Assortment in Consumer Choice. Journal of Consumer Research 30 (September): 170-183.
11. Dhar, R. 1997. Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option. Journal of Consumer Research 24 (2): 2215-2231.
12. - - - . 1997. Context and Task Effects on Choice Deferral. Marketing Letters 8 (1): 119-130.
13. Diehl, K., and C. Poynor. 2007. Great Expectations?! Assortment Size, Expectations and Satisfaction. Working paper, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California.
14. Ding, M. 2007. An Incentive-Aligned Mechanism for Conjoint Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 44 (May): 214-223.
15. Ding, M., R. Grewal, and J. Liechty. 2005. Incentive-Aligned Conjoint Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 42 (February): 67-82.
16. Dong, S., M. Ding, and J. Huber. 2010. A Simple Mechanism to Incentive Align Conjoint Experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing 27 (1): 25-32.
17. Fasolo, B., R. Hertwig, M. Huber, and M. Ludwig. 2009. Size, Entropy, and Density:What Is the Difference That Makes the Difference between Small and Large Real-World Assortments? Psychology and Marketing 26 (3): 254-279.
18. Haaijer, M. E., W. A. Kamakura, and M. Wedel. 2001. The No-Choice Alternative in Conjoint Choice. International Journal of Market Research 43 (1): 93-106.
19. Hanley, N., S. Mourato, and R. E. Wright. 2001. Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for EnvironmentalValuation? Journal of Economic Surveys 15 (3): 435-462.
20. Harrison, G. W. 2006. Experimental Evidence of Alternative Environmental Valuation Methods. Environmental and Resource Economics 34 (1): 125-162.
21. Hensher, D. A. 1994. Stated Preference Analysis of Travel Choices: The State of Practice. Transportation 21 (2): 107-133.
22. Holmes, T. P., and K. J. Boyle. 2001. Cross Validation of Conjoint Ranking and Choice Data: An Application to Timber Harvesting Preferences. Paper presented at the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 11th Annual Conference, Southampton, UK.
23. Iyengar, S. S. 2010. The Art of Choosing. New York: Twelve Publishers.
24. Iyengar, S. S., G. Huberman, and W. Jiang. 2004. How Much Choice Is Too Much? Contributions to 401(k) Retirement Plans. In Pension Design and Structure: New Lessons from Behavioral Finance, ed.
25. Olivia S. Mitchell and Steve Utkus, 83-95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Iyengar, S. S., and M. Lepper. 2000. When Choice is De-motivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (6): 995-1006.
27. Iyengar, S. S., R. E. Wells, and B. Schwartz. 2006. Doing Better but Feeling Worse - Looking for the "Best" Job Undermines Satisfaction. Psychological Science 17 (2): 143-150.
28. Krinsky, I., and A. L. Robb. 1986. On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics 68 (4): 715-719.
29. Ladenburg, J., S. Olsen, R. Nielsen. 2007. Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments. Working Paper, Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
30. Landman, J. 1993. Regret: The Persistence of the Possible. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
31. Lenk, P. J., W. S. DeSarbo, P. E. Green, and M. R. Young. 1996. Hierarchical Bayes ConjointAnalysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity From Reduced Experimental Designs. Marketing Science 15 (2): 173-191.
32. Loo, B. P. Y., S. C. Wong, and T. D. Hau. 2008. Choice or Rank Data in Stated Preference Surveys? Open Transportation Journal 2: 74-79.
33. Louviere, J. J. 1988. Conjoint Analysis Modeling of Stated Preferences: A Review of Theory, Methods, Recent Developments and External Validity. Journal of Transport, Economics and Policy 22: 93-119.
34. - - - . 2001. Choice Experiments: An Overview of Concepts and Issues. In The Choice Modelling Approach to Environment Valuation, ed. J. Bennett and R. K. Blamey, 13-36. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
35. Louviere, J. J., and Street, D. 2000. Stated-Preference Methods. In Handbook of Transport Modelling, ed. David A. Hensher and Kenneth J. Button, 131-143. Amsterdam: Pergamon Press.
36. Louviere, J. J., D. Street, L. B. Burgess, N. Wasi, T. Islam, and A. A. Marley. 2008. Modeling the Choices of Individual Decision-makers by Combining Efficient Choice Experiment DesignsWith Extra Preference Information. Journal of Choice Modelling 1 (1): 128-163.
37. Lusk, J. L., D. Fields, andW. Prevatt. 2008. An Incentive Compatible Conjoint Ranking Mechanism. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(2): 487-498.
38. Lusk, J. L., and T. C. Schroeder. 2004. Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86 (2): 467-482.
39. Mogas, J., and P. Riera. 2001. Comparación de la Ordenación Contingente y del Experimento de Elección en la Valoración de las Funciones no Privadas de los Bosques [Comparison of Ranking Conjoint and Choice Experiment in the Evaluation of Forests' Non-private Functions] [in Spanish]. EconomíaAgraria y Recursos Naturales 1 (2): 125-147.
40. Moore, W. 2004. A Cross-Validity Comparison of Ratings-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Models. International Journal of Research in Marketing 21 (3): 299-312.
41. Morrison, M. D., and K. J. Boyle. 2001. Comparative Reliability of Rank and Choice Data in Stated Preference Models. Paper presented at EAERE 11th Annual Conference, Southampton, UK.
42. Phillips, K. A., F. R. Johnson, and T. Maddala. 2002. Measuring What People Value: A Comparison of Attitude and Preference Surveys. Health Service Research 37 (6): 1659-1679.
43. Pignone, M. P., A. T. Brenner, S. Hawley, S. L. Sheridan, C. L. Lewis, D. E. Jonas, and K. Howard. 2011. Conjoint Analysis Versus Rating and Ranking for Values Elicitation and Clarification in Colorectal Cancer Screening. Journal of General Internal Medicine 27 (1): 45-50.
44. Poe, G. L., K. L. Giraud, and J. B. Loomis. 2005. Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87 (2): 353-365.
45. Roe, B., K. J. Boyle, and M. F. Teisl. 1996. Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation. Journal of Environmental Management 31 (2): 145-159.
46. Rossi, P. E., and G. M. Allenby. 2003. Bayesian Statistics and Marketing. Marketing Science 22 (3): 304-328.
47. Sagi, A., and N. Friedland. 2007. The Cost of Richness: The Effect of the Size and Diversity of Decision Sets on Post-decision Regret. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93 (4): 515-524.
48. Sawtooth Software, Inc. 2009. CBC/HB Software for Hierarchical Bayes Estimation for CBC Data. http://www. sawtoothsoftware. com.
49. Schwartz, B. 2000. Self-Determination: The Tyranny of Freedom. American Psychologist 55 (1): 79-88.
50. - - - . 2004. The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. New York: HarperCollins.
51. Schwartz, B., A. Ward, J. Monterosso, S. Lyubomirsky, K. White, and D. R. Lehman 2002. Maximizing versus Satisficing: Happiness Is a Matter of Choice. Personality and Social Psychology 83 (5): 1178-1197.
52. Sela, A., J. Berger, and W. Liu. 2009. Variety, Vice, and Virtue: How Assortment Size Influences Option Choice. Journal of Consumer Research 35 (6): 941-951.
53. Stevens, T. H., C. Barrett, and C. E. Willis. 1997. ConjointAnalysis of Groundwater Protection Programs. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 26 (2): 229-236.
54. Street, D. J., A. Burgess, and J. J. Louviere. 2005. Quick and Easy Choice Sets: Constructing Optimal and Nearly Optimal Stated Choice Experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing 22 (4): 459-470.
55. Street, D., and L. B. Burgess. 2007. The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments: Theory and Methods, 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley & Sons.
56. Tversky, A., and E. Shafir. 1992. Choice Under Conflict:The Dynamics of Deferred Decision. Psychological Science 3 (6): 358-361. Services