Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Effects of alternative elicitation formats in discrete choice experiments

Contents:

Author Info

  • Scheufele, Gabriela
  • Bennett, Jeffrey W.

Abstract

An 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 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/94948
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub in its series Research Reports with number 94948.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Mar 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:eerhrr:94948

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Crawford Building, Lennox Crossing, Building #132, Canberra ACT 0200
Phone: +61 2 6125 4705
Fax: +61 2 6125 5448
Email:
Web page: http://www.crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: 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:

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. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  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:eerhrr:94948. 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.