Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis
Of twenty-three agricultural economics conjoint analyses conducted between 1990 and 2001, seventeen used interval-rating scales, with estimation procedures varying widely. This study tests cardinality assumptions in conjoint analysis when interval-rating scales are used, and tests whether the ordered probit or two-limit tobit model is the most valid. Results indicate that cardinality assumptions are invalid, but estimates of the underlying utility scale for the two models do not differ. Thus, while the ordered probit model is theoretically more appealing, the two-limit tobit model may be more useful in practice, especially in cases with limited degrees of freedom, such as with individual-level conjoint models.
Volume (Year): 34 (2005)
Issue (Month): 2 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.narea.org/|
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1991. "Ordinal and cardinal utility : An integration of the two dimensions of the welfare concept," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 69-89, October.
- Fernando San Miguel & Mandy Ryan & Emma McIntosh, 2000. "Applying conjoint analysis in economic evaluations: an application to menorrhagia," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(7), pages 823-833.
- George J. Stigler, 1950.
"The Development of Utility Theory. II,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 58, pages 373.
- Yoo, Dong-il & Ohta, Hiroshi, 1995. "Optimal pricing and product-planning for new multiattribute products based on conjoint analysis," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2-3), pages 245-253, March.
- Gilbert Sylvia & Sherry L. Larkin, 1995. "Firm-level Intermediate Demand for Pacific Whiting Products: A Multi-attribute, Multi-sector Analysis," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 43(3), pages 501-518, November.
- Gan, Christopher E.C. & Luzar, E. Jane, 1993. "A Conjoint Analysis Of Waterfowl Hunting In Louisiana," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(02), December.
- Roe, Brian & Boyle, Kevin J. & Teisl, Mario F., 1996. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159, September.
- Fisher, Irving, 1918. "Is "Utility" the Most Suitable Term for the Concept It is Used to Denote?," History of Economic Thought Articles, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, vol. 8, pages 335-337.
- Halbrendt, Catherine K. & Wirth, Ferdinand F. & Vaughn, Gerald F., 1991. "Conjoint Analysis Of The Mid-Atlantic Food-Fish Market For Farm-Raised Hybrid Striped Bass," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(01), July.
- Biing-Hwan Lin & Steven Payson & Jane Wertz, 1996. "Opinions of professional buyers toward organic produce: A case study of mid-Atlantic market for fresh tomatoes," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 89-97.
- Stevens, Thomas H. & Barrett, Christopher B. & Willis, Cleve E., 1997. "Conjoint Analysis Of Groundwater Protection Programs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 26(2), October.
- Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
- Jeffrey Gillespie & Gary Taylor & Alvin Schupp & Ferdinand Wirth, 1998. "Opinions of professional buyers toward a new, alternative red meat: Ostrich," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 247-256.
- MacKenzie, John, 1990. "Conjoint Analysis Of Deer Hunting," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), October.
- Gary Crow, 1997. "Estimating the Values of Cattle Characteristics Using an Ordered Probit Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(2), pages 463-476.
- Holland, Daniel S. & Roheim, Cathy A., 1998. "Predicting Consumer Preferences For Fresh Salmon: The Influence Of Safety Inspection And Production Method Attributes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 27(1), April.
- Harrison, R. Wes & Stringer, Timothy & Prinyawiwatkul, Witoon, 2002. "An Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Value-Added Seafood Products Derived from Crawfish," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 31(2), October.
- 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.
- Gineo, Wayne M., 1990. "A Conjoint/Logit Analysis Of Nursery Stock Purchases," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(1), April.
- Jill E. Hobbs, 1996. "Transaction costs and slaughter cattle procurement: Processors' selection of supply channels," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(6), pages 509-523.
- Harrison, R. Wes & Ozayan, Aylin & Meyers, Samuel P., 1998. "A Conjoint Analysis Of New Food Products Processed From Underutilized Small Crawfish," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(02), December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:arerjl:10238. 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.