IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

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

  • Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu

    ()

    (University of Rouen)

  • Pere Riera

    ()

    (Autonomous University of Barcelona)

  • Raul Brey

    ()

    (Pablo de Olavide University)

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.

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

Article provided by AccessEcon in its journal Economics Bulletin.

Volume (Year): 30 (2010)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 1384-1391

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-10-00219
Contact details of provider:

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. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2007. "Starting-point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00175925, HAL.
  2. 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.
  3. Alejandro Caparr�s & 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. I J Bateman & I H Langford, 1997. "Budget-constraint, temporal, and question-ordering effects in contingent valuation studies," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 29(7), pages 1215-1228, July.
  7. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 118(1), pages 73-105, February.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

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)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.