Effects of alternative elicitation formats in discrete choice experiments
AbstractAn elicitation format prevalently applied in discrete choice experiments (DCEs) offers each respondent a sequence of choice tasks. Each choice task contains more than two choice options. Empirical evidence shows, however, that repeated choice tasks influence choice behaviour through institutional learning, fatigue, value learning and strategic response. The study reported in this paper uses a split sample approach. This approach was based on field surveys using a single binary elicitation format. To expand the research on effects of sequential binary DCE formats, a majority vote baseline was used. We present evidence for effects caused by institutional learning, and by either strategic behaviour or value learning, after respondents answered repeated choice questions. However, we did not find any indications for strategic behaviour in respondents caused by their awareness of having multiple choices. The decision to use a sequential or a single elicitation format may therefore imply a trade-off between decreased choice accuracy and potentially increased strategic behaviour in respondents. This trade-off is due to an incentive incompatible mechanism. Further research is needed to explore strategic behaviour 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 behaviour, 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 InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub in its series Research Reports with number 94948.
Date of creation: Mar 2010
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Crawford Building, Lennox Crossing, Building #132, Canberra ACT 0200
Phone: +61 2 6125 4705
Fax: +61 2 6125 5448
Web page: http://www.crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/
More information through EDIRC
discrete choice experiments; split sample approach; elicitation format; incentive compatibility; strategic behaviour; learning effects; panel mixed logit models; Environmental Economics and Policy; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;
Other versions of this item:
- Gabriela Scheufele & Jeff Bennett, 2013. "Effects of alternative elicitation formats in discrete choice experiments," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(2), pages 214-233, 04.
- Scheufele, Gabriela & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2010. "Effects of alternative elicitation formats in discrete choice experiments," 2010 Conference (54th), February 10-12, 2010, Adelaide, Australia 59158, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- 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.
- 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.
- McCartney, Abbie & Cleland, Jonelle, 2010. "Choice Experiment Framing and Incentive Compatibility: observations from public focus groups," Research Reports 107575, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
- Gabriela Scheufele & Jeff Bennett, 2010.
"Ordering effects and strategic response in discrete choice experiments,"
Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports
1093, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
- 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.
- McNair, Ben J. & Bennett, Jeff & Hensher, David A., 2010.
"A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions,"
23163, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- 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.
- 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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.