IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/agecon/v57y2026i1ne70070.html

Trade‐Off Between Accuracy and Cognitive Burden: Influence of Stated Attribute Non‐Attendance Questions on Participants' Choice Behaviors

Author

Listed:
  • Yefan Nian
  • Zhifeng Gao
  • Rodolfo M. Nayga
  • Yuning Zhao
  • Joanna Van Asselt

Abstract

Past studies have shown that asking stated attribute non‐attendance (ANA) questions at the choice task level can improve the accuracy of revealing participants' ANA information in choice experiments (CEs). However, the impact of such questions on CE participants' underlying choice behaviors in subsequent choice tasks remains underexplored. This study assesses whether and to what extent stated ANA questions within CE choice task sequences introduce learning and fatigue effects by influencing participants' behaviors in CEs, including response time, preference elicitation, choice randomness, and willingness‐to‐pay (WTP). Using a between‐subject design by assigning participants to one of three CEs with different types of stated ANA questions, we found that although choice task level stated ANA questions provided more accurate ANA information, they might lead to participants' longer response time, increased choice randomness, and altered WTP estimates with larger standard deviations, possibly due to increased cognitive burden for participants. Meanwhile, a single randomly placed stated ANA question could also influence CE participants' response time and preferences, but have minimal impact on choice randomness. Therefore, CE practitioners should carefully weigh the enhanced accuracy of ANA behavior measurement against potential disruptions to participants' choice behaviors when including stated ANA questions in CEs.

Suggested Citation

  • Yefan Nian & Zhifeng Gao & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Yuning Zhao & Joanna Van Asselt, 2026. "Trade‐Off Between Accuracy and Cognitive Burden: Influence of Stated Attribute Non‐Attendance Questions on Participants' Choice Behaviors," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 57(1), January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:57:y:2026:i:1:n:e70070
    DOI: 10.1111/agec.70070
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.70070
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/agec.70070?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. Luini, Luigi & Nese, Annamaria & Sbriglia, Patrizia, 2014. "Social influence in trustors’ neighbourhoods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 97-110.
    2. 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.
    3. Zhifeng Gao & Lisa O. House & Xiaohua Yu, 2010. "Using choice experiments to estimate consumer valuation: the role of experimental design and attribute information loads," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(6), pages 555-565, November.
    4. David Hensher, 2006. "Revealing Differences in Willingness to Pay due to the Dimensionality of Stated Choice Designs: An Initial Assessment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 7-44, May.
    5. Mohammed Alemu & Morten Mørkbak & Søren Olsen & Carsten Jensen, 2013. "Attending to the Reasons for Attribute Non-attendance in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 333-359, March.
    6. David A. Hensher, 2008. "Joint Estimation of Process and Outcome in Choice Experiments and Implications for Willingness to Pay," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 42(2), pages 297-322, May.
    7. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & David A. Hensher, 2010. "Monitoring Choice Task Attribute Attendance in Nonmarket Valuation of Multiple Park Management Services: Does It Matter?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(4), pages 817-839.
    8. Mikolaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2014. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited: Investigating the Effects of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 324-351.
    9. Puckett, Sean M. & Hensher, David A., 2009. "Revealing the extent of process heterogeneity in choice analysis: An empirical assessment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 117-126, February.
    10. Van Asselt, Joanna & Nian, Yefan & Soh, Moonwon & Morgan, Stephen & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "Do plastic warning labels reduce consumers' willingness to pay for plastic egg packaging? – Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    11. David Hensher & William Greene, 2010. "Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: a latent class specification," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 413-426, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Allen Blackman & Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Adan L. Martinez-Cruz & Leonardo Corral & Maja Schling, 2024. "The Benefits of Titling Indigenous Communities in the Peruvian Amazon: A Stated Preference Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 100(2), pages 333-352.
    14. Yefan Nian & Zhifeng Gao & Ruojin Zhao, 2023. "Are people's daily life habits consistent with their preference for food sustainability labels?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 589-622, July.
    15. Jing Xie & Zhifeng Gao & Marilyn Swisher & Xin Zhao, 2016. "Consumers’ preferences for fresh broccolis: interactive effects between country of origin and organic labels," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 181-191, March.
    16. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Game form recognition in preference elicitation, cognitive abilities, and cognitive load," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 49-65.
    17. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Seo, Han-Seok & Zhang, Baoyue & Verbeke, Wim, 2015. "Sustainability labels on coffee: Consumer preferences, willingness-to-pay and visual attention to attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 215-225.
    18. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    19. Gao, Zhifeng & House, Lisa & Bi, Xiang, 2016. "Impact of satisficing behavior in online surveys on consumer preference and welfare estimates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 26-36.
    20. Daniel K. Lew, 2019. "Place of Residence and Cost Attribute Non-Attendance in a Stated Preference Choice Experiment Involving a Marine Endangered Species," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(3), pages 225-245.
    21. Kelvin Balcombe & Iain Fraser & Eugene McSorley, 2015. "Visual Attention and Attribute Attendance in Multi‐Attribute Choice Experiments," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(3), pages 447-467, April.
    22. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    23. Curtis Rollins, 2023. "Investigating cost non‐attendance as a driver of inflated welfare estimates in mixed‐logit models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 921-934, September.
    24. Fosgerau, Mogens & Nielsen, Søren Feodor, 2010. "Deconvoluting Preferences And Errors: A Model For Binomial Panel Data," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(6), pages 1846-1854, December.
    25. Regier, Dean A. & Watson, Verity & Burnett, Heather & Ungar, Wendy J., 2014. "Task complexity and response certainty in discrete choice experiments: An application to drug treatments for juvenile idiopathic arthritis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 40-49.
    26. 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, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    27. Jayson L. Lusk, 2003. "Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 840-856.
    28. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo, 2017. "Multinomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual Heterogeneity in R: The gmnl Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i02).
    29. 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., vol. 21(6), pages 861-878.
    30. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2012. "Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1225-1239, November.
    31. Chenyi He & Lijia Shi & Zhifeng Gao & Lisa House, 2020. "The impact of customer ratings on consumer choice of fresh produce: A stated preference experiment approach," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 359-373, September.
    32. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1990. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Correction," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(1), pages 189-190, February.
    33. Louviere, Jordan J, 2001. "What If Consumer Experiments Impact Variances as Well as Means? Response Variability as a Behavioral Phenomenon," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(3), pages 506-511, December.
    34. John Loomis, 2011. "What'S To Know About Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Valuation Studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 363-370, April.
    35. Michael Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "Comparing Alternative Models Of Heterogeneity In Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 1018-1045, September.
    36. Callaway, Brantly & Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C., 2021. "Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 200-230.
    37. Vincenzina Caputo & Riccardo Scarpa, 2022. "Methodological Advances in Food Choice Experiments and Modeling: Current Practices, Challenges, and Future Research Directions," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 63-90, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Enni Roukamo & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & A. Juutinen & R. Svento, 2016. "Linking perceived choice complexity with scale heterogeneity in discrete choice experiments: home heating in Finland," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2016-16, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    2. Yefan Nian & R. David Lamie & Michael Vassalos & Daniel Tregeagle & Ben Boyles & Diana Vossbrinck, 2025. "A Diamond in the Rough: Identifying Heritage Crop Niche Markets in the United States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 56(6), pages 940-960, November.
    3. Gonçalves, Tânia & Lourenço-Gomes, Lina & Pinto, Lígia M. Costa, 2022. "The role of attribute non-attendance on consumer decision-making: Theoretical insights and empirical evidence," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 788-805.
    4. 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.
    5. Chen, Xuqi & Shen, Meng & Gao, Zhifeng, "undated". "Impact of Intra-respondent Variations in Attribute Attendance on Consumer Preference in Food Choice," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258509, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Does attribute order influence attribute-information processing in discrete choice experiments?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    7. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    8. Kemper, Nathan & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Popp, Jennie & Bazzani, Claudia, 2016. "The Effects of Honesty Oath and Consequentiality in Choice Experiments," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235381, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Shiwen Quan & Yinchu Zeng & Xiaohua Yu & Te Bao, 2018. "WTP for baby milk formula in China: Using attribute nonattendance as a priori information to select attributes in choice experiment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 300-320, March.
    10. Scarpa, Riccardo & Notaro, Sandra & Raffaelli, Roberta & Louviere, Jordan, "undated". "Modelling attribute non-attendance in best-worst rank ordered choice data to estimate tourism benefits from Alpine pasture heritage," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115990, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. 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.
    12. Hole, Arne Risa & Kolstad, Julie Riise & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2013. "Inferred vs. stated attribute non-attendance in choice experiments: A study of doctors’ prescription behaviour," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 21-31.
    13. Caputo, Vincenzina & Loo, Ellen J. Van & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "“Using Experiments to Address Attribute Non-attendance in Consumer Food Choices”," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 177173, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2021. "Attribute range effects: Preference anomaly or unexplained variance?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    15. Dudinskaya, Emilia Cubero & Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2020. "Using eye-tracking as an aid to design on-screen choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    16. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    17. Fraser, Iain & Balcombe, Kelvin & Williams, Louis & McSorley, Eugene, 2021. "Preference stability in discrete choice experiments. Some evidence using eye-tracking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    18. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2018. "The effect of attribute-alternative matrix displays on preferences and processing strategies," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 113-132.
    19. Colombo, Sergio & Christie, Michael & Hanley, Nick, 2013. "What are the consequences of ignoring attributes in choice experiments? Implications for ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 25-35.
    20. Van Asselt, Joanna & Nian, Yefan & Soh, Moonwon & Morgan, Stephen & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "Do plastic warning labels reduce consumers' willingness to pay for plastic egg packaging? – Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).

    More about this item

    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:bla:agecon:v:57:y:2026:i:1:n:e70070. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.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.