IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-10-00219.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing the cognitive burden of two choice modeling valuation variants. The between and within sample approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu

    () (University of Rouen)

  • Pere Riera

    () (Autonomous University of Barcelona)

  • Raul Brey

    () (Pablo de Olavide University)

Abstract

Scores are commonly used in environmental valuation exercises. The two main procedures when testing for score differences are the within sample and the between sample approaches. Their conclusions do not always coincide. With a case study involving scores on difficulty of responding to two choice modeling variants –contingent ranking and contingent grouping–, the paper shows the strength of the within sample approach when relying on the coherent arbitrariness principle. Results suggest that the grouping is significantly less difficult to complete than the ranking task. The validity of these results is enhanced by the fact that they are independent of the exercise order, which is tested by randomizing the sequence order in which respondents face the two methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Pere Riera & Raul Brey, 2010. "Testing the cognitive burden of two choice modeling valuation variants. The between and within sample approaches," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(2), pages 1384-1391.
  • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-10-00219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2010/Volume30/EB-10-V30-I2-P128.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    2. Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma J. & Philips, Zoe N. & Covey, Judith & Smith, Richard D., 2007. "On the numerical forms of contingent valuation responses," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 462-476, August.
    3. Flachaire, Emmanuel & Hollard, Guillaume, 2007. "Starting point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 183-194, September.
    4. I J Bateman & I H Langford, 1997. "Budget-Constraint, Temporal, and Question-Ordering Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 29(7), pages 1215-1228, July.
    5. Nick Hanley & Bengt Kriström & Jason F. Shogren, 2009. "Coherent Arbitrariness: On Value Uncertainty for Environmental Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(1), pages 41-50.
    6. Brey, Raul & Bergland, Olvar & Riera, Pere, 2011. "A contingent grouping approach for stated preferences," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 745-755, September.
    7. 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.
    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. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Craste & Bengt Kriström & Pere Riera, 2014. "Non-market valuation in France: An overview of the research activity," Working Papers hal-01087365, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    between sample test; choice modeling; cognitive burden; coherent arbitrariness; within sample test;

    JEL classification:

    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • C8 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-10-00219. 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: (John P. Conley). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.