Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment
AbstractThe aim of this paper is twofold: firstly, to carry out a theoretical review of the most recent stated preference techniques used for eliciting consumers preferences and, secondly, to compare the empirical results of two dierent stated preference discrete choice approaches. They dier in the measurement scale for the dependent variable and, therefore, in the estimation method, despite both using a multinomial logit. One of the approaches uses a complete ranking of full-profiles (contingent ranking), that is, individuals must rank a set of alternatives from the most to the least preferred, and the other uses a first-choice rule in which individuals must select the most preferred option from a choice set (choice experiment). From the results we realize how important the measurement scale for the dependent variable becomes and, to what extent, procedure invariance is satisfied.
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 Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra in its series Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics with number 705.
Date of creation: Jun 2003
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.econ.upf.edu/
Stated preferences; contingent ranking; choice experiment;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
- C42 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Survey Methods
- C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2004-05-16 (All new papers)
- NEP-DCM-2004-05-16 (Discrete Choice Models)
- NEP-MIC-2004-05-16 (Microeconomics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Alan Diener & Bernie O'Brien & Amiram Gafni, 1998.
"Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature,"
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 313-326.
- A Diener & B O'Brien & A Gafni, 1997. "Health Care Contingent Valuation Studies: A review and classification of the literature," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1997-07, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
- Anna Merino, 2003. "Demand for pharmaceutical drugs: A choice modelling experiment," Economics Working Papers 704, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Madeleine King & Jordan Louviere & Rosalie Viney & Angela Yeoh, 2002. "Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 457-465.
- Anna Merino, 2003. "Demand for pharmaceutical drugs: A choice modelling experiment," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 704, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. " Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 5(2), pages 103-23, Se.
- Mandy Ryan & Jenny Hughes, 1997. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women's Preferences for Miscarriage Management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 261-273.
- Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. " Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-62, July.
- Harry Telser & Peter Zweifel, 2002. "Measuring willingness-to-pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 129-139.
- Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
- Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
- Ilja Neustadt & Peter Zweifel, 2010.
"Is the Welfare State Sustainable? Experimental Evidence on Citizens’ Preferences for Redistribution,"
SOI - Working Papers
1003, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
- Ilja Neustadt & Peter Zweifel, 2010. "Is the Welfare State Sustainable? Experimental Evidence on Citizens' Preferences for Redistribution," CESifo Working Paper Series 3148, CESifo Group Munich.
- Neustadt, Ilja & Zweifel, Peter, 2010. "Is the Welfare State Sustainable? Experimental Evidence on Citizens' Preferences for Redistribution," MPRA Paper 22233, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Pfarr, Christian & Ulrich, Volker, 2011.
"Discrete-Choice-Experimente zur Ermittlung der Präferenzen für Umverteilung
[Discrete-Choice-Experiments to elicit individuals' preferences for redistribution]," MPRA Paper 31707, University Library of Munich, Germany.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.