IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/resene/v61y2020ics0928765518304548.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using an integrated choice and latent variable model to understand the impact of “professional” respondents in a stated preference survey

Author

Listed:
  • Sandorf, Erlend Dancke
  • Persson, Lars
  • Broberg, Thomas

Abstract

Internet panels are increasingly used for stated preference research. Because members of such panels receive compensation for each completed survey, one concern is that over time this creates professional respondents who answer surveys solely for the monetary compensation. We identify professional respondents using data on panel tenure, survey response frequency, completion rate and total number of completed surveys. We find evidence of two types of professional respondents: “hyperactives” who answer surveys frequently and “experienced” who have long panel tenure and a large number of completed surveys. Using an integrated choice and latent variable model on stated preference survey data, we find that “hyperactive” respondents are less likely to choose the 'status quo’ and have a more stochastic choice process as seen from the econometrician's point of view, whereas “experienced” respondents have a relatively more deterministic choice process. Our results show that “hyperactive” respondents significantly impact estimated values.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Persson, Lars & Broberg, Thomas, 2020. "Using an integrated choice and latent variable model to understand the impact of “professional” respondents in a stated preference survey," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:61:y:2020:i:c:s0928765518304548
    DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2020.101178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765518304548
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2020.101178?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhifeng Gao & Lisa A. House & Jing Xie, 2016. "Online Survey Data Quality and Its Implication for Willingness-to-Pay: A Cross-Country Comparison," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(2), pages 199-221, June.
    2. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    3. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    4. Dekker, Thijs & Hess, Stephane & Brouwer, Roy & Hofkes, Marjan, 2016. "Decision uncertainty in multi-attribute stated preference studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 57-73.
    5. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    6. Hess, Stephane & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2013. "Linking response quality to survey engagement: A combined random scale and latent variable approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-12.
    7. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Vossler, Christian A. & Budziński, Wiktor & Wiśniewska, Aleksandra & Zawojska, Ewa, 2017. "Addressing empirical challenges related to the incentive compatibility of stated preferences methods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 47-63.
    8. Ulf Liebe & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Volkmar Hartje, 2012. "Test–Retest Reliability of Choice Experiments in Environmental Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(3), pages 389-407, November.
    9. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bjørner, Thomas Bue, 2006. "Joint models for noise annoyance and willingness to pay for road noise reduction," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 164-178, February.
    10. Campbell, Danny & Boeri, Marco & Doherty, Edel & George Hutchinson, W., 2015. "Learning, fatigue and preference formation in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 345-363.
    11. Ole Bonnichsen & S�ren B�ye Olsen, 2016. "Correcting for non-response bias in contingent valuation surveys concerning environmental non-market goods: an empirical investigation using an online panel," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(2), pages 245-262, February.
    12. Danny Campbell & Morten Raun Mørkbak & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2017. "Response time in online stated choice experiments: the non-triviality of identifying fast and slow respondents," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 17-35, January.
    13. Stephane Hess & Nesha Beharry-Borg, 2012. "Accounting for Latent Attitudes in Willingness-to-Pay Studies: The Case of Coastal Water Quality Improvements in Tobago," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(1), pages 109-131, May.
    14. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2012. "Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1225-1239, November.
    15. Toepoel, V. & Das, J.W.M. & van Soest, A.H.O., 2008. "Design Effects in Web Surveys : Comparing Trained and Fresh Respondents," Other publications TiSEM 4c8b40aa-7557-4844-9474-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth E. & Polak, John W., 2006. "On the use of a Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a Mixed Logit Model for vehicle choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 147-163, February.
    17. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    18. Andrew Daly & Stephane Hess & Bhanu Patruni & Dimitris Potoglou & Charlene Rohr, 2012. "Using ordered attitudinal indicators in a latent variable choice model: a study of the impact of security on rail travel behaviour," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 267-297, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    2. Seojeong Oh & Benjamin M. Gramig, 2023. "Valuing Ecosystem Services and Downstream Water Quality Improvement in the U.S. Corn Belt," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 823-872, August.
    3. Erlend Dancke Sandorf & Kristine Grimsrud & Henrik Lindhjem, 2022. "Ponderous, Proficient or Professional? Survey Experience and Smartphone Effects in Stated Preference Research," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(4), pages 807-832, April.
    4. Kaitlynn Sandstrom‐Mistry & Frank Lupi & Hyunjung Kim & Joseph A. Herriges, 2023. "Comparing water quality valuation across probability and non‐probability samples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 744-761, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Campbell, Danny & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2018. "The link between response time and preference, variance and processing heterogeneity in stated choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 18-34.
    2. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Vossler, Christian A. & Budziński, Wiktor & Wiśniewska, Aleksandra & Zawojska, Ewa, 2017. "Addressing empirical challenges related to the incentive compatibility of stated preferences methods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 47-63.
    3. Grilli, Gianluca & Notaro, Sandra & Campbell, Danny, 2018. "Including Value Orientations in Choice Models to Estimate Benefits of Wildlife Management Policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 70-81.
    4. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Schüle, Christopher & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2023. "The motivational drivers behind consumer preferences for regional electricity – Results of a choice experiment in Southern Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    5. Habtamu Tilahun Kassahun & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen & Joffre Swait & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2020. "Social Cooperation in the Context of Integrated Private and Common Land Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(1), pages 105-136, January.
    6. Kløjgaard, Mirja Elisabeth & Hess, Stephane, 2014. "Understanding the formation and influence of attitudes in patients' treatment choices for lower back pain: Testing the benefits of a hybrid choice model approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 138-150.
    7. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2022. "Testing for saliency-led choice behavior in discrete choice modeling: An application in the context of preferences towards nuclear energy in Italy," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    8. Faccioli, Michela & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Glenk, Klaus & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2020. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    9. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C., 2017. "The effect of the number of alternatives in choice experiment questions," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259179, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Muhammad Bello & Awudu Abdulai, 2016. "Measuring heterogeneity, survey engagement and response quality in preferences for organic products in Nigeria," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(13), pages 1159-1171, March.
    11. Jonathan Sicsic & Serge Blondel & Sandra Chyderiotis & François Langot & Judith E. Mueller, 2023. "Preferences for COVID-19 epidemic control measures among French adults: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(1), pages 81-98, February.
    12. Schmid, Basil & Axhausen, Kay W., 2019. "In-store or online shopping of search and experience goods: A hybrid choice approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 156-180.
    13. Anna Bartczak & Wiktor Budziński & Bernadeta Gołębiowska, 2018. "Impact of beliefs about negative effects of wind turbines on preference heterogeneity regarding renewable energy development in Poland," Working Papers 2018-19, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    14. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark D. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C. & Rose, John, 2021. "Effects of the number of alternatives in public good discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    15. Akshay Vij & Rico Krueger, 2018. "Random taste heterogeneity in discrete choice models: Flexible nonparametric finite mixture distributions," Papers 1802.02299, arXiv.org.
    16. Michela Faccioli & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk & Julia Martin-Ortega, 2018. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as simultaneous determinants of preferences for environmental goods," Working Papers 2018-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    17. Hangjian Wu & Emmanouil Mentzakis & Marije Schaafsma, 2022. "Exploring Different Assumptions about Outcome-Related Risk Perceptions in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(3), pages 531-572, March.
    18. Gregory Howard & Brian E. Roe & Matthew G. Interis & Jay Martin, 2020. "Addressing Attribute Value Substitution in Discrete Choice Experiments to Avoid Unintended Consequences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(4), pages 813-838, December.
    19. Dalemans, Floris & Muys, Bart & Verwimp, Anne & Van den Broeck, Goedele & Bohra, Babita & Sharma, Navin & Gowda, Balakrishna & Tollens, Eric & Maertens, Miet, 2018. "Redesigning oilseed tree biofuel systems in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 631-643.
    20. Thao Thai & Michiel Bliemer & Gang Chen & Jean Spinks & Sonja de New & Emily Lancsar, 2023. "Comparison of a full and partial choice set design in a labeled discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(6), pages 1284-1304, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Professional respondents; Internet panels; Discrete choice experiments; Integrated choice and latent variable model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:61:y:2020:i:c:s0928765518304548. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505569 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.