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

Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited. The Impact of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity on Perceived Ordering Effects in Multiple Choice Task Discrete Choice Experiments

Contents:

Author Info

  • Mikołaj Czajkowski

    ()
    (University of Warsaw, Faculty of Economic Sciences)

  • Marek Giergiczny

    ()
    (University of Warsaw, Faculty of Economic Sciences)

  • William H. Greene

    ()
    (New York University, Stern School of Business, Department of Economics)

Abstract

Using multiple choice tasks per respondent in discrete choice experiment studies increase the amount of available information. However, treating repeated choice data in the same way as cross-sectional data may lead to biased estimates. In particular, respondents’ learning and fatigue may lead to changes in observed utility function preference (taste) parameters, as well as its error term variance (scale). Substantial body of empirical research offers mixed evidence in terms of whether (and which) of these ordering effects are observed. In this study we point to a significant component in explaining these differences – we show how accounting for unobservable preference and scale heterogeneity can influence the magnitude of observed ordering effects, especially if combined with too few choice tasks used for the analysis. We do this by utilizing the state-of-the-art modeling methods (H-MNL, S-MNL, H-RPL, G-MNL) which we modify to accommodate choice task specific scale parameter. In addition, we investigate possible bias resulting from not accounting for ordering effects. Our empirical study was based in the context of environmental protection – management changes in the protection of Polish forests.

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://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/inf/wyd/WP/WNE_WP74.pdf
File Function: First version, 2012
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw in its series Working Papers with number 2012-08.

as in new window
Length: 44 pages
Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2012-08

Contact details of provider:
Postal: ul. Dluga 44/50, 00-241 Warszawa
Phone: (+48 22) 55 49 144
Fax: (+48 22) 831 28 46
Email:
Web page: http://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: ordering effects; learning; fatigue; preference and scale heterogeneity; forest management; recreation; biodiversity;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. Fosgerau, Mogens & Nielsen, Søren Feodor, 2010. "Deconvoluting Preferences And Errors: A Model For Binomial Panel Data," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(06), pages 1846-1854, December.
  2. Mogens Fosgerau, 2004. "Investigating the distribution of the value of travel time savings," Urban/Regional, EconWPA 0410005, EconWPA, revised 25 Nov 2004.
  3. John C. Liechty & Duncan K. H. Fong & Wayne S. DeSarbo, 2005. "Dynamic Models Incorporating Individual Heterogeneity: Utility Evolution in Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 285-293, November.
  4. Jacinto Braga & Chris Starmer, 2005. "Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 55-89, 09.
  5. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
  6. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth E., 2011. "Recovery of inter- and intra-personal heterogeneity using mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 973-990, August.
  7. Roy Brouwer & Thijs Dekker & John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2010. "Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 93-109, May.
  8. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. " The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 135-48, June.
  9. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Gary Koop, 2002. "Modelling Recreation Demand Using Choice Experiments: Climbing in Scotland," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(3), pages 449-466, July.
  10. Thomas P. Holmes & Kevin J. Boyle, 2005. "Dynamic Learning and Context-Dependence in Sequential, Attribute-Based, Stated-Preference Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(1).
  11. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
  12. Carlsson, Fredrik & Raun Mørkbak, Morten & Bøye Olsen, Søren, 2010. "The first time is the hardest: A test of ordering effects in choice experiments," Working Papers in Economics, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics 470, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
  13. David Bjornstad & Ronald Cummings & Laura Osborne, 1997. "A Learning Design for Reducing Hypothetical Bias in the Contingent Valuation Method," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 207-221, October.
  14. Day, Brett & Pinto Prades, Jose-Luis, 2010. "Ordering anomalies in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 271-285, May.
  15. Hensher, David & Louviere, Jordan & Swait, Joffre, 1998. "Combining sources of preference data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 197-221, November.
  16. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
  17. Scott J. Savage & Donald M. Waldman, 2008. "Learning and fatigue during choice experiments: a comparison of online and mail survey modes," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 351-371.
  18. David A. Hensher, 2001. "Measurement of the Valuation of Travel Time Savings," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and University of Bath, London School of Economics and University of Bath, vol. 35(1), pages 71-98, January.
  19. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
  20. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
  21. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), September.
  22. David Hensher, 2006. "Revealing Differences in Willingness to Pay due to the Dimensionality of Stated Choice Designs: An Initial Assessment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 7-44, 05.
  23. de Palma, Andre & Myers, Gordon M & Papageorgiou, Yorgos Y, 1994. "Rational Choice under an Imperfect Ability to Choose," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 84(3), pages 419-40, June.
  24. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
  25. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
  26. Chanjin Chung & Tracy Boyer & Sungill Han, 2011. "How many choice sets and alternatives are optimal? Consistency in choice experiments," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 114-125, Winter.
  27. Heiner, Ronald A, 1983. "The Origin of Predictable Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 560-95, September.
  28. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
  29. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
  30. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
  31. John Rose & Iain Black, 2006. "Means matter, but variance matter too: Decomposing response latency influences on variance heterogeneity in stated preference experiments," Marketing Letters, Springer, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 295-310, December.
  32. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
  33. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
  34. David A. Hensher, 2006. "How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 861-878.
  35. David A. Hensher, 2004. "Identifying the Influence of Stated Choice Design Dimensionality on Willingness to Pay for Travel Time Savings," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and University of Bath, London School of Economics and University of Bath, vol. 38(3), pages 425-446, September.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Knox, Stephanie A. & Viney, Rosalie C. & Gu, Yuanyuan & Hole, Arne R. & Fiebig, Denzil G. & Street, Deborah J. & Haas, Marion R. & Weisberg, Edith & Bateson, Deborah, 2013. "The effect of adverse information and positive promotion on women's preferences for prescribed contraceptive products," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 70-80.

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:war:wpaper:2012-08. 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: (Marcin Bąba).

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.