Learning, fatigue and preference formation in discrete choice experiments

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Volumn 119, Issue , 2015, Pages 345-363

  Campbell, Danny ^a   Boeri, Marco ^b   Doherty, Edel ^c   George Hutchinson, W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^b QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^c NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Discrete choice experiments; Learning and fatigue behavior; Preference and variance consistency; Preference formation; Probabilistic decision process model

Indexed keywords

EID: 84942745243     PISSN: 01672681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2015.08.018     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Alberini A. Repeated questioning in choice experiments: are we improving statistical efficiency or getting respondents confused?. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2012, 1(2):216-233.
2. Ariely D., Loewenstein G., Prelec D. "Coherent arbitrariness": stable demand curves without stable preferences. Q. J. Econ. 2003, 118(1):73-106.
3. Bateman I.J., Burgess D., Hutchinson W.G., Matthews D.I. Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2008, 55(2):127-141.
4. Bradley M., Daly A. Use of the logit scaling approach to test for rank-order and fatigue effects in stated preference data. Transportation 1994, 21:167-184.
5. Braga J., Starmer C. Preference anomalies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2005, 32:55-89.
6. Brouwer R. Constructed preference stability: a test-retest. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2012, 1(1):70-84.
7. Brouwer R., Dekker T., Rolfe J., Windle J. Choice certainty and consistency in repeated choice experiments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2010, 46:93-109.
8. Campbell D. Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random-effects models. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 58(3):467-483.
9. Campbell D., Erdem S. Position bias in best-worst scaling surveys: a case study on trust in institutions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 97(2):526-545.
10. Campbell D., Hensher D.A., Scarpa R. Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 2011, 54(8):1061-1076.
11. Campbell D., Hensher D.A., Scarpa R. Cost thresholds, cut-offs and sensitivities in stated choice analysis: identification and implications. Resour. Energy Econ. 2012, 34(3):396-411.
12. Campbell D., Hensher D.A., Scarpa R. Bounding WTP distributions to reflect the 'actual' consideration set. J. Choice Model. 2014, 11:4-15.
13. Campbell D., Hess S., Scarpa R., Rose J.M. Accommodating coefficient outliers in discrete choice modelling: a comparison of discrete and continuous mixing approaches. Choice Modelling: The State-of-the-art and the State-of-practice - Proceedings from the Inaugural International Choice Modelling Conference 2010, 331-352. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley. S. Hess, A. Daly (Eds.).
14. Carlsson F., Martinsson P. Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments?. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2001, 41:179-192.
15. Carlsson F., Mørkbak M.R., Olsen S.B. The first time is the hardest: a test of ordering effects in choice experiments. J. Choice Model. 2012, 5(2):19-37.
16. Caussade S., Ortúzar J.D., Rizzi L.I., Hensher D.A. Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transp. Res. B 2005, 39(7):621-640.
17. Czajkowski M., Giergiczny M.M., Greene W.H. Learning and fatigue effects revisited: investigating the effects of accounting for unobservable preference and scale heterogeneity. Land Econ. 2014, 90(2):324-351.
18. Day B., Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Dupont D., Louviere J.J., Morimoto S., Scarpa R., Wang P. Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2012, 63(1):73-91.
19. Day B., Prades J.P. Ordering anomalies in choice experiments. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2010, 59(3):271-285.
20. DeShazo J.R., Fermo G. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2002, 2002:123-143.
21. Doornik J.A. Object-Oriented Matrix Programming Using Ox 2007, Timberlake Consultants Press and Oxford, London.
22. Erdem S., Campbell D., Hole A.R. Accounting for attribute-level non-attendance in a health choice experiment: does it matter?. Health Econ. 2015, 24(7):773-789.
23. Erdem S., Campbell D., Thompson C. Elimination and selection by aspects in health choice experiments: prioritising health service innovations. J. Health Econ. 2014, 38:10-22.
24. Fosgerau M., Hess S. A comparison of methods for representing random taste heterogeneity in discrete choice models. Eur. Transp. 2009, 42:1-25.
25. Greene W.H., Hensher D.A. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transp. Res. B 2003, 37:681-698.
26. Greene W.H., Hensher D.A. Revealing additional dimensions of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model. Appl. Econ. 2013, 45(14):1897-1902.
27. Hensher D.A., Collins A.T., Greene W.H. Accounting for attribute non-attendance and common-metric aggregation in a probabilistic decision process mixed multinomial logit model: a warning on potential confounding. Transportation 2013, 40(5):1003-1020.
28. Hensher D.A., Greene W.H. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30:133-176.
29. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
30. Hess S. Conditional parameter estimates from mixed logit models: distributional assumptions and a free software tool. J. Choice Model. 2010, 3(2):134-152.
31. Hess S., Bierlaire M., Polak J.W. Estimation of value of travel-time savings using mixed logit models. Transp. Res. A 2005, 39:221-236.
32. Hess S., Hensher D.A., Daly A. Not bored yet-revisiting respondent fatigue in stated choice experiments. Transp. Res. A: Policy Pract. 2012, 46(3):626-644.
33. Hess S., Rose J.M. Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models?. Transportation 2012, 39(6):1225-1239.
34. Holmes T.P., Boyle K.J. Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions. Land Econ. 2005, 81:114-126.
35. Hu W., Adamowicz W.L., Veeman M.M. Labeling context and reference point effects in models of food attribute demand. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2006, 88(4):1034-1049.
36. Kingsley D.C., Brown T.C. Preference uncertainty, preference learning, and paired comparison experiments. Land Econ. 2010, 86(3):530-544.
37. Lagerkvist C.J., Carlsson F., Viske D. Swedish consumer preferences for animal welfare and biotech: a choice experiment. AgBioForum: J. Agrobiotechnol. Manage. Econ. 2006, 9:51-58.
38. Lancaster K.J. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 1966, 74(2):132-157.
39. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
40. Magidson J., Vermunt J.K. Removing the scale factor confound in multinomial logit choice models to obtain better estimates of preference. Proceedings Of The Sawtooth Software Conference 2008.
41. Manski C.F. The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis. 1977, 8:229-254.
42. McNair B.J., Hensher D.A., Bennett J. Modelling heterogeneity in response behaviour towards a sequence of discrete choice questions: a probabilistic decision process model. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2012, 51(4):599-616.
43. Oppewal H., Morrison M., Wang P., Waller D. Preference stability: modeling how consumer preferences shift after receiving new product information. Choice Modelling: The State-of-the-art and the State-of-practice - Proceedings from the Inaugural International Choice Modelling Conference 2010, 499-516. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley. S. Hess, A. Daly (Eds.).
44. Plott C.R. Rational individual behaviour in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis. The Rational Foundations of Economic Behaviour 1996, Macmillan Press, London. K.J. Arrow, E. Colombatto, M. Perlman, C. Schmidt (Eds.).
45. Plott C.R., Zeiler K. The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the "endowment effect", subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. Am. Econ. Rev. 2005, 95(3):530-545.
46. Sælensminde K. Inconsistent choices in stated choice data: use of the logit scaling approach to handle resulting variance increases. Transportation 2001, 28:269-296.
47. Savage S.J., Waldman D. Learning and fatigue during choice experiments: a comparison of online and mail survey modes. J. Appl. Econ. 2008, 23:351-371.
48. Scarpa R., Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G. Benefits estimates for landscape improvements: sequential Bayesian design and respondents' rationality in a choice experiment. Land Econ. 2007, 83:617-634.
49. Scarpa R., Gilbride T.J., Campbell D., Hensher D.A. Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2009, 36(2):151-174.
50. Swait J., Adamowicz W. Choice environment, market complexity, and consumer behavior: a theoretical and empirical approach for incorporating decision complexity into models of consumer choice. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2001, 86:141-167.
51. Thurstone L.L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 1927, 34:273-286.
52. Yu J., Vishwanathan S.V.N., Günter S., Schraudolph N.N. A quasi-Newton approach to nonsmooth convex optimization problems in machine learning. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2010, 11:1145-1200.