Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Effects of alternative elicitation formats in discrete choice experiments

Contents:

Author Info

  • Scheufele, Gabriela
  • Bennett, Jeffrey W.

Abstract

An elicitation format prevalently applied in DCE is to offer each respondent a sequence of choice tasks containing more than two choice options. However, empirical evidence indicates that repeated choice tasks influence choice behavior through institutional learning, fatigue, value learning, and strategic response. The study reported in this paper employs a split sample approach based on field surveys using a single binary elicitation format with a majority vote implementation as the baseline to expand the research on effects of sequential binary DCE formats. We provide evidence for effects caused by institutional learning and either strategic behavior or value learning after respondents answered repeated choice questions. However, we did not find any indications for strategic behavior caused by awareness of having multiple choices. The choice between a sequential and a single elicitation format may thus imply a trade-off between decreased choice accuracy and potentially increased strategic behavior due to an incentive incompatible mechanism. Further research is needed to explore strategic behavior induced by incentive incompatible elicitation formats using alternative approaches that are not compromised by a confounded baseline, that facilitate the differentiation between value learning and strategic behavior, and that allow the use of less restrictive model specifications. Such research should also investigate the effects of varying incentives induced by the order in which choice questions are presented to respondents.

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://purl.umn.edu/59158
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society in its series 2010 Conference (54th), February 10-12, 2010, Adelaide, Australia with number 59158.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:aare10:59158

Contact details of provider:
Postal: AARES Central Office Manager, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200
Phone: 0409 032 338
Email:
Web page: http://www4.agr.gc.ca
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: discrete choice experiments; split sample approach; elicitation format; incentive compatibility; strategic behavior; learning effects; panel mixed logit models; Environmental Economics and Policy;

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

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. Scheufele, Gabriela & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2010. "Ordering effects and strategic response in discrete choice experiments," Research Reports 107743, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
  2. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Musshoff, Oliver, 2013. "Investment Behavior of Ugandan Smallholder Farmers: An Experimental Analysis," Discussion Papers 154775, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
  3. McNair, Ben J. & Bennett, Jeff & Hensher, David A., 2011. "A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 554-571, September.
  4. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Musshoff, Oliver, 2013. "Understanding the Investment Behavior of Ugandan Smallholder Farmers: An Experimental Analysis," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150331, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  5. Abbie McCartney & Jonelle Cleland, 2010. "Choice Experiment Framing and Incentive Compatibility: observations from public focus groups," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1076, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
  6. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Chiputwa, Brian & Musshoff, Oliver, 2013. "Do Changing Probabilities or Payoffs in Lottery-Choice Experiments Matter? Evidence from Rural Uganda," Discussion Papers 158146, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
  7. Baker, Rick & Ruting, Brad, 2014. "Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Maquarie, Australia 165810, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

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:ags:aare10:59158. 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: (AgEcon Search).

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.