IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v34y2006i1p45-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comment on “Revealing Differences in Willingness to Pay Due to the Dimensionality of Stated Choice Designs: An Initial Assessment”

Author

Listed:
  • F. Johnson

Abstract

There are very few studies that quantify the interactions and tradeoffs between statistical and cognitive efficiency in designing stated-choice studies. While a conceptual framework for evaluating cognitive strategies would be desirable, Hensher adopts a strictly empirical approach in this experiment. The success of the study must be evaluated in light of his aggregating attributes rather than controlling the number of attributes, asymmetry in the narrow-range and wide-range attributes, and lack of orthogonality between the number of attributes and number of alternatives. Nevertheless, Hensher challenges uncritical acceptance of any given set of design features and correctly insists that we confirm our experience with rigorous, quantitative experiments. Copyright Springer 2006

Suggested Citation

  • F. Johnson, 2006. "Comment on “Revealing Differences in Willingness to Pay Due to the Dimensionality of Stated Choice Designs: An Initial Assessment”," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 45-50, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:34:y:2006:i:1:p:45-50
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-005-3783-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10640-005-3783-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10640-005-3783-x?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. Stirling Bryan & Lisa Gold & Rob Sheldon & Martin Buxton, 2000. "Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(5), pages 385-395, July.
    2. Arentze, Theo & Borgers, Aloys & Timmermans, Harry & DelMistro, Romano, 2003. "Transport stated choice responses: effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 229-244, May.
    3. Tara Maddala & Kathryn A. Phillips & F. Reed Johnson, 2003. "An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1035-1047, December.
    4. Louviere, Jordan J, 2001. "What If Consumer Experiments Impact Variances as Well as Means? Response Variability as a Behavioral Phenomenon," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(3), pages 506-511, December.
    5. Dominique Rouzies & Renée Darmon, 1991. "Internal Validity Assessment of Conjoint Estimated Attribute Importance Weights," Post-Print hal-00537856, HAL.
    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. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff, 2009. "The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1140-1148, February.
    2. Marjolijn De Wilde & Peter Goos, 2017. "The Implementation of Social Policy: A Factorial Survey Approach," Working Papers 1706, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.

    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. Semra Özdemir & Ateesha F. Mohamed & F. Reed Johnson & A. Brett Hauber, 2010. "Who pays attention in stated‐choice surveys?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 111-118, January.
    2. Denise Bijlenga & Gouke J. Bonsel & Erwin Birnie, 2011. "Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1392-1406, November.
    3. F. Reed Johnson & Ateesha F. Mohamed & Semra Özdemir & Deborah A. Marshall & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2011. "How does cost matter in health‐care discrete‐choice experiments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 323-330, March.
    4. Mickael Bech & Trine Kjaer & Jørgen Lauridsen, 2011. "Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 273-286, March.
    5. Deborah A. Marshall & F. Reed Johnson & Nathalie A. Kulin & Semra Özdemir & Judith M. E. Walsh & John K. Marshall & Stephanie Van Bebber & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2009. "How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated‐choice survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1420-1439, December.
    6. Harry Telser & Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 283-298, October.
    7. Jui-Chen Yang & Shelby D. Reed & Steve Hass & Mark B. Skeen & F. Reed Johnson, 2021. "Is Easier Better Than Harder? An Experiment on Choice Experiments for Benefit-Risk Tradeoff Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 222-232, February.
    8. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    9. Ofentse Mokwena, 2016. "Paratransit Mesoeconomy: Control Measures From The Supply Side?," Proceedings of Economics and Finance Conferences 3205591, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    10. Yu-Cheng Ku & Tsun-Feng Chiang & Sheng-Mao Chang, 2017. "Is what you choose what you want?—outlier detection in choice-based conjoint analysis," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 29-42, March.
    11. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "Temporal Stability of Stated Preferences: The Case of Junior Nursing Jobs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(6), pages 802-809, June.
    12. Fraser, Iain & Balcombe, Kelvin & Williams, Louis & McSorley, Eugene, 2021. "Preference stability in discrete choice experiments. Some evidence using eye-tracking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    13. Geoffrey N. Kerr & Basil M.H. Sharp, 2008. "Evaluating off-site environmental mitigation using choice modelling ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(4), pages 381-399, December.
    14. Juan Marcos González & Justin Doan & David J. Gebben & Marco Boeri & Mayer Fishman, 2018. "Comparing the Relative Importance of Attributes of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treatments to Patients and Physicians in the United States: A Discrete-Choice Experiment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(8), pages 973-986, August.
    15. Arne Risa Hole, 2006. "Small-sample properties of tests for heteroscedasticity in the conditional logit model," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(18), pages 1-14.
    16. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    17. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Stated preferences over job characteristics: A panel study," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 43-82, February.
    18. Jorien Veldwijk & Stella Maria Marceta & Joffre Dan Swait & Stefan Adriaan Lipman & Esther Wilhelmina Bekker-Grob, 2023. "Taking the Shortcut: Simplifying Heuristics in Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(4), pages 301-315, July.
    19. Tobias Börger & Oliver Frör & Sören Weiß, 2017. "The relationship between perceived difficulty and randomness in discrete choice experiments: Investigating reasons for and consequences of difficulty," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-03, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    20. David A. Hensher, 2006. "How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 861-878.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    choice experiments; experimental design; stated-choice methods; stated preference; transportation economics; C25; C93; R41;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • R41 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Transportation: Demand, Supply, and Congestion; Travel Time; Safety and Accidents; Transportation Noise

    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:kap:enreec:v:34:y:2006:i:1:p:45-50. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.