IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genres/32626.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Capturing Preferences Under Incomplete Scenarios Using Elicited Choice Probabilities

Author

Listed:
  • Herriges, Joseph A.
  • Bhattacharjee, Subhra
  • Kling, Catherine L.

Abstract

Manski (1999) proposed an approach for dealing with a particular form respondent uncertainty in discrete choice settings, particularly relevant in survey based research when the uncertainty stems from the incomplete description of the choice scenarios. Specifically, he suggests eliciting choice probabilities from respondents rather than their single choice of an alternative. A recent paper in IER by Blass et al. (2010) further develops the approach and presents the first empirical application. This paper extends the literature in a number of directions, examining the linkage between elicited choice probabilities and the more common discrete choice elicitation format. We also provide the first convergent validity test of the elicited choice probability format vis-\`a-vis the standard discrete choice format in a split sample experiment. Finally, we discuss the differences between welfare measures that can be derived from elicited choice probabilities versus those that can obtained from discrete choice responses.

Suggested Citation

  • Herriges, Joseph A. & Bhattacharjee, Subhra & Kling, Catherine L., 2011. "Capturing Preferences Under Incomplete Scenarios Using Elicited Choice Probabilities," Staff General Research Papers Archive 32626, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:isu:genres:32626
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/papers/p12626-2011-03-24.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Palma, Andre & Myers, Gordon M & Papageorgiou, Yorgos Y, 1994. "Rational Choice under an Imperfect Ability to Choose," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(3), pages 419-440, June.
    2. Andre Palma & Moshe Ben-Akiva & David Brownstone & Charles Holt & Thierry Magnac & Daniel McFadden & Peter Moffatt & Nathalie Picard & Kenneth Train & Peter Wakker & Joan Walker, 2008. "Risk, uncertainty and discrete choice models," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 269-285, December.
      • André de Palma & Moshe Ben-Akiva & David Brownstone & Charles Holt & Thierry Magnac & Daniel McFadden & Peter Moffatt & Nathalie Picard & Kenneth Train & Peter Wakker & Joan Walker, 2008. "Risk, Uncertainty and Discrete Choice Models," THEMA Working Papers 2008-02, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Riccardo Scarpa & Claudia Bazzani & Diego Begalli & Roberta Capitello, 2021. "Resolvable and Near‐epistemic Uncertainty in Stated Preference for Olive Oil: An Empirical Exploration," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 335-369, June.
    2. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2020. "Handling resolvable uncertainty from incomplete scenarios in future doctors' job choice – Probabilities vs discrete choices," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).

    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. Christian Schlereth & Christine Eckert & Bernd Skiera, 2012. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate willingness-to-pay intervals," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 761-776, September.
    2. Foster, Gigi & Frijters, Paul & Schaffner, Markus & Torgler, Benno, 2018. "Expectation formation in an evolving game of uncertainty: New experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 379-405.
    3. Emmanuel Kemel & Muriel Travers, 2016. "Comparing attitudes toward time and toward money in experience-based decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(1), pages 71-100, January.
    4. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    5. Ignacio A. Inoa & Nathalie Picard & Andr� de Palma, 2015. "Effect of an Accessibility Measure in a Model for Choice of Residential Location, Workplace, and Type of Employment," Mathematical Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 4-36, March.
    6. André de Palma & Gordon M. Myers & Yorgos Y. Papageorgiou, 2022. "PoolLines: Imperfect Public Choice," THEMA Working Papers 2022-25, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    7. 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.
    8. Xiao, Yu & Fukuda, Daisuke, 2015. "On the cost of misperceived travel time variability," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 96-112.
    9. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2011. "Exploiting cut-off information to incorporate context effect: a discrete choice experiment on small fruits in a Alpine region," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114646, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Kerstens, Kristiaan & Mounir, Amine & de Woestyne, Ignace Van, 2011. "Non-parametric frontier estimates of mutual fund performance using C- and L-moments: Some specification tests," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 1190-1201, May.
    11. Dimitrije Marković & Jan Gläscher & Peter Bossaerts & John O’Doherty & Stefan J Kiebel, 2015. "Modeling the Evolution of Beliefs Using an Attentional Focus Mechanism," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-34, October.
    12. Photis, Yorgos N., 1992. "Locational planning on scenario-based networks," MPRA Paper 21794, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 21 Feb 2010.
    13. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "Experiences from the Swedish Value of Time study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 144-158.
    14. Conlisk, John, 1996. "Bounded rationality and market fluctuations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 233-250, March.
    15. Jang, Sunghoon & Rasouli, Soora & Timmermans, Harry, 2022. "The effect of task complexity on stated choice processes: The moderating role of cognitive ability," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    16. Ignacio A. Inoa & Nathalie Picard & André de Palma, 2013. "Commuting Time and Accessibility in a Joint Residential Location, Workplace, and Job Type Choice Model," THEMA Working Papers 2013-02, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    17. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    18. Mark D. Agee & Thomas D. Crocker, 2002. "On Techniques to Value the Impact of Environmental Hazards on Children's Health," NCEE Working Paper Series 200208, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Sep 2002.
    19. Li, Baibing & Hensher, David A., 2017. "Risky weighting in discrete choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 1-21.
    20. Stefano Ficco & Vladimir Karamychev & Peran van Reeven, 2006. "A Theory of Procedurally Rational Choice: Optimization without Evaluation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 06-001/1, Tinbergen Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    discrete choice; Elicited Choice Probabilities;

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:isu:genres:32626. 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: Curtis Balmer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.html .

    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.