IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/mktlet/v17y2006i4p255-268.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The no-choice option and dual response choice designs

Author

Listed:
  • Jeff Brazell
  • Christopher Diener
  • Ekaterina Karniouchina
  • William Moore
  • Válerie Séverin
  • Pierre-Francois Uldry

Abstract

Choice set designs that include a constant or no-choice option have increased efficiency, better mimic consumer choices, and allow one to model changes in market size. However, when the no-choice option is selected no information is obtained on the relative attractiveness of the available alternatives. One potential solution to this problem is to use a dual response format in which respondents first choose among a set of available alternatives in a forced-choice task and then choose among the available alternatives and a no-choice option. This paper uses a simulation to demonstrate and confirm the possible gains in efficiency of dual response over traditional choice-based conjoint tasks when there are different proportions choosing the no-choice option. Next, two choice-based conjoint analysis studies find little systematic violation of IIA with the addition/deletion of a no-choice option. Further analysis supports the hypothesis that selection of the no-choice option is more closely related to choice set attractiveness than to decision difficulty. Finally, validation evidence is presented. Our findings show that researchers can employ the dual response approach, taking advantages of the increased power of estimation, without concern for systematically biasing the resulting parameter estimates. Hence, we argue this is a valuable approach when there is the possibility of a large number of no-choices and preference heterogeneity. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Suggested Citation

  • Jeff Brazell & Christopher Diener & Ekaterina Karniouchina & William Moore & Válerie Séverin & Pierre-Francois Uldry, 2006. "The no-choice option and dual response choice designs," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 255-268, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:17:y:2006:i:4:p:255-268
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-006-7943-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11002-006-7943-8
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11002-006-7943-8?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. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    2. Zsolt Sándor & Michel Wedel, 2002. "Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 455-475, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. GOOS, Peter & VERMEULEN, Bart & VANDEBROEK, Martina, 2008. "D-optimal conjoint choice designs with no-choice options for a nested logit model," Working Papers 2008020, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    2. Ailawadi, Kusum L. & Gedenk, Karen & Langer, Tobias & Ma, Yu & Neslin, Scott A., 2014. "Consumer response to uncertain promotions: An empirical analysis of conditional rebates," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 94-106.
    3. Amos Schurr & Yaakov Kareev & Judith Avrahami & Ilana Ritov, 2012. "Taking the Broad Perspective: Risky Choices in Repeated Proficiency Tasks," Discussion Paper Series dp621, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    4. van Putten, Marloes & Lijesen, Mark & Özel, Tanju & Vink, Nancy & Wevers, Harm, 2014. "Valuing the preferences for micro-generation of renewables by househoulds," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 596-604.
    5. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    6. Peschel, Anne O. & Grebitus, Carola & Steiner, Bodo & Veeman, Michele, 2015. "A Behavioral Approach to Understanding Green Consumerism Using Latent Class Choice Analysis," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202727, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Mohammad Rashed Hasan Polas & Ratul Kumar Saha & Mosab I. Tabash, 2022. "How does tourist perception lead to tourist hesitation? Empirical evidence from Bangladesh," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 3659-3686, March.
    8. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 141-167, November.
    9. Hristina Nikolova & Cait Lamberton, 2016. "Men and the Middle: Gender Differences in Dyadic Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 43(3), pages 355-371.
    10. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    11. Sabrina Berens & Joachim Funke, 2020. "A vignette study of option refusal and decision deferral as two forms of decision avoidance: Situational and personal predictors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-25, October.
    12. Georgios Gerasimou, 2016. "Asymmetric dominance, deferral, and status quo bias in a behavioral model of choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 295-312, February.
    13. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Pei-I Yu, Annie & Lai, Wan-Ting, 2019. "Change in your wallet, change your choice: The effect of the change-matching heuristic on choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 67-76.
    14. Villanova, Daniel & Bodapati, Anand V. & Puccinelli, Nancy M. & Tsiros, Michael & Goodstein, Ronald C. & Kushwaha, Tarun & Suri, Rajneesh & Ho, Henry & Brandon, Renee & Hatfield, Cheryl, 2021. "Retailer Marketing Communications in the Digital Age: Getting the Right Message to the Right Shopper at the Right Time," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 116-132.
    15. Ghiassaleh, Arezou & Kocher, Bruno & Czellar, Sandor, 2020. "Best seller!? Unintended negative consequences of popularity signs on consumer choice behavior," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 805-820.
    16. Rose, John M. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2008. "Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 395-406, May.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:2:p:196-204 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Gao, Hongchao & Wei, Tong & Lou, Inchio & Yang, Zhifeng & Shen, Zhenyao & Li, Yingxia, 2014. "Water saving effect on integrated water resource management," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 50-58.
    19. Andreas Falke & Harald Hruschka, 2017. "Setting prices in mixed logit model designs," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 139-154, March.
    20. Thai, Nguyen T. & Yuksel, Ulku, 2017. "Too many destinations to visit: Tourists’ dilemma?," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 38-53.
    21. Chakravarthi Narasimhan & Özge Turut, 2013. "Differentiate or Imitate? The Role of Context-Dependent Preferences," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 393-410, May.

    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:mktlet:v:17:y:2006:i:4:p:255-268. 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.