Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

How many choice sets and alternatives are optimal? Consistency in choice experiments

Contents:

Author Info

  • Chanjin Chung
  • Tracy Boyer
  • Sungill Han

Abstract

This article focuses on two important issues faced by researchers working on choice experiments: how to find the optimal number of alternatives in each choice set and the number of choice sets in each survey. The authors first develop survey instruments with different numbers of choice sets and alternatives. Then, a heteroscedastic logit model is developed to relate the varying number of alternatives and choice sets to changes in the error term by parameterizing the scale factor of the heteroscedastic logit model. The authors study the effects of two simultaneous forms of complexity on the consistency of respondents' choices, i.e., the number of choice sets per questionnaire and the number of options per choice set. Their findings suggest that respondents' choices do vary with the amount of information given resulting in an optimal five options and six choice sets per survey. Results from the marginal effects and willingness to pay (WTP) estimates indicate that varying the number of alternatives and choice sets can also affect consumers' marginal WTP estimates. [EconLit citations: Q110; Q130; Q180]. (C) 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/agr.20252
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Agribusiness.

Volume (Year): 27 (2011)
Issue (Month): 1 (Winter)
Pages: 114-125

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:27:y:2011:i:1:p:114-125

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297

Related research

Keywords:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. MikoĊ‚aj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2012. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited. The Impact of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity on Perceived Ordering Effects in Multiple Choice Task Discrete Choice Experiments," Working Papers 2012-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:27:y:2011:i:1:p:114-125. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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