IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aareaj/333766.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context

Author

Listed:
  • Yangui, Ahmed
  • Akaichi, Faical
  • Costa-Font, Montserrat
  • Gil, Jose Maria

Abstract

This study assesses the comparability of discrete choice experiment (DCE), ranking conjoint analysis (RCA) and multiprofile best–worst scaling (BWS) in a nonhypothetical context in terms of estimated partworths, willingness to pay (WTP), response consistency and external validity. Overall, the results suggest that: (i) the conjoint analysis formats that were used in this study provide similar estimated WTP, but different estimated partworths and computed external validity; (ii) the inclusion of the full ranking information in the estimation of the parameters of interest affects the estimated partworths, but not the estimated WTP; and (iii) it is more appropriate to use multiprofile BWS over DCE and RCA because it has better predictive power of consumers’ preferences and provides estimated WTP comparable to those obtained in the others conjoint analysis formats. The BWS’ cognitive process could be considered clearness for participants implying significant increment of its predictive power.

Suggested Citation

  • Yangui, Ahmed & Akaichi, Faical & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2019. "Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aareaj:333766
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.333766
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/333766/files/ajar12292.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.333766?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Faical Akaichi & Rodolfo M. Nayga & José M. Gil, 2013. "Are Results from Non-hypothetical Choice-based Conjoint Analyses and Non-hypothetical Recoded-ranking Conjoint Analyses Similar?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(4), pages 949-963.
    2. Jordan Louviere & Terry Flynn, 2010. "Using Best-Worst Scaling Choice Experiments to Measure Public Perceptions and Preferences for Healthcare Reform in Australia," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 275-283, December.
    3. Brown, Thomas C. & Kingsley, David & Peterson, George L. & Flores, Nicholas E. & Clarke, Andrea & Birjulin, Andrej, 2008. "Reliability of individual valuations of public and private goods: Choice consistency, response time, and preference refinement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(7), pages 1595-1606, July.
    4. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    5. Ali Chalak & Mohamad Abiad & Kelvin Balcombe, 2016. "Joint use of attribute importance rankings and non-attendance data in choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(5), pages 737-760.
    6. Roy Brouwer & Thijs Dekker & John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2010. "Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 93-109, May.
    7. Potoglou, Dimitris & Burge, Peter & Flynn, Terry & Netten, Ann & Malley, Juliette & Forder, Julien & Brazier, John E., 2011. "Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: An empirical comparison using social care data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(10), pages 1717-1727, May.
    8. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    9. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    10. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Morikawa, Takayuki & Shiroishi, Fumiaki, 1992. "Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 149-164, March.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    12. Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
    13. Train, K. & Weeks, M., 2004. "Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to Pay Space," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0443, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    14. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    15. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    16. Arkes, Hal R. & Joyner, Cynthia A. & Pezzo, Mark V. & Nash, Jane Gradwohl & Siegel-Jacobs, Karen & Stone, Eric, 1994. "The Psychology of Windfall Gains," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 331-347, September.
    17. Vermeulen, Bart & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2010. "Obtaining more information from conjoint experiments by best-worst choices," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 1426-1433, June.
    18. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2004:i:6:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    20. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    21. Rose, John M. & Beck, Matthew J. & Hensher, David A., 2015. "The joint estimation of respondent-reported certainty and acceptability with choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 141-152.
    22. Deacue Fields & Walt Prevatt, 2008. "An Incentive Compatible Conjoint Ranking Mechanism," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 487-498.
    23. Tiziana de-Magistris & Azucena Gracia & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2013. "On the Use of Honesty Priming Tasks to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1136-1154.
    24. Alejandro Caparrós & José L. Oviedo & Pablo Campos, 2008. "Would You Choose Your Preferred Option? Comparing Choice and Recoded Ranking Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(3), pages 843-855.
    25. T.N. Flynn & A.A.J. Marley, 2014. "Best-worst scaling: theory and methods," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 8, pages 178-201, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    26. Joseph Little & Robert Berrens, 2004. "Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(6), pages 1-13.
    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. MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Rose, John M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Bark, Rosalind H. & Pritchard, Jodie, 2019. "Managing groundwater in a mining region: an opportunity to compare best-worst and referendum data," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), October.
    2. Yan-Shiang Chiou & Pei-Ing Wu & Je-Liang Liou & Ta-Ken Huang & Chu-Wei Chen, 2023. "What Is the Willingness to Pay for a Basket of Agricultural Goods? Multi-Features of Organic, Animal Welfare-Based and Natural Products with No Additives," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-19, September.

    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. Yangui, A. & Akaichi, Faiçal & Costa-Font, M. & Gil, J. M., 2014. "Do experimental protocols in Conjoint Analysis matter in non Hypothetical settings?," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170345, Agricultural Economics Society.
    2. Yangui, Ahmed1 & Akaichi, Faiçal & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2014. "Are ranking preferences information methods comparable with the choice experiment information in predicting actual behavior?," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182672, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    4. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    5. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    6. José L. Oviedo & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "A Latent Class Nested Logit Model for Rank-Ordered Data with Application to Cork Oak Reforestation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1021-1051, December.
    7. Zhai, Qianqian & Kassas, Bachir & Zhao, Shuoli & Chen, Lijun & Chen, Chao, 2020. "Investigating Preference Inconsistencies in Incentive Structures that Account for House Money Effects," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304584, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    9. Varela, Elsa & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Giergiczny, Marek & Riera, Pere & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Testing the single opt-out reminder in choice experiments: An application to fuel break management in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 212-222.
    10. Kirsten, Johann & Vermeulen, Hes & van Zyl, Karlien & du Rand, Gerrie & du Plessis, Henrietta & Weissnar, Tessa, 2017. "Do South African Consumers have an Appetite for an Origin-based Certification System for Meat Products? A Synthesis of Studies on Perceptions, Preferences and Experiments," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 8(1), pages 1-18, January.
    11. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta & Notaro, Sandra, 2010. "The Role Of Production Methods In Fruit Purchasing Behaviour: Hypothetical Vs Actual Consumers’ Preferences And Stated Minimum Requirements," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116426, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    13. Hong il Yoo, 2012. "The perceived unreliability of rank-ordered data: an econometric origin and implications," Discussion Papers 2012-46, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    14. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    15. Wuepper, David & Clemm, Alexandra & Wree, Philipp, 2019. "The preference for sustainable coffee and a new approach for dealing with hypothetical bias," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 475-486.
    16. Bazzani, Claudia & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Canavari, Maurizio & Danforth, Diana M., 2016. "On the Use of the BDM Mechanism in Non-Hypothetical Choice Experiments," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235904, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    18. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid, 2018. "Hypothetical bias and decision-rule effect in modelling discrete directional choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 361-388.
    19. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John & Greaves, Stephen, 2014. "Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 164-177.
    20. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy;

    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:ags:aareaj:333766. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.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.