IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions

  • McNair, Ben J.
  • Bennett, Jeff
  • Hensher, David A.

According to neoclassical economic theory, a stated preference elicitation format comprising a single binary choice between the status quo and one alternative is incentive compatible under certain conditions. Formats typically used in choice experiments comprising a sequence of discrete choice questions do not hold this property. In this paper, the effect on stated preferences of expanding the number of binary choice tasks per respondent from one to four is tested using a split sample treatment in an attribute-based survey relating to the undergrounding of overhead low-voltage electricity and telecommunications wires. We find evidence to suggest that presenting multiple choice tasks per respondent decreases estimates of expected willingness to pay. Preferences stated in the first of a sequence of choice tasks are not significantly different from those stated in the incentive compatible single binary choice task, but, in subsequent choice tasks, responses are influenced by cost levels observed in past questions. Three behavioural explanations can be advanced - weak strategic misrepresentation, reference point revision, and asymmetric value learning. The evidence is contrary to the standard assumption of truthful response with stable preferences.

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:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Resource and Energy Economics.

Volume (Year): 33 (2011)
Issue (Month): 3 (September)
Pages: 554-571

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:33:y:2011:i:3:p:554-571
Contact details of provider: Web page:

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. Carson, Katherine Silz & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George, 2009. "Necessary conditions for demand revelation in double referenda," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 219-225, March.
  2. Gabriela Scheufele & Jeff Bennett, 2013. "Effects of alternative elicitation formats in discrete choice experiments," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(2), pages 214-233, 04.
  3. Jayson Lusk & Ted Schroeder, 2004. "Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks," Artefactual Field Experiments 00096, The Field Experiments Website.
  4. Lorenzo Masiero & David A. Hensher, 2010. "Shift of reference point and implications on behavioral reaction to gains and losses," Quaderni della facoltà di Scienze economiche dell'Università di Lugano 1005, USI Università della Svizzera italiana.
  5. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
  6. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1501, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  7. Day, Brett & Pinto Prades, Jose-Luis, 2010. "Ordering anomalies in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 271-285, May.
  8. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
  9. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
  10. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2004. "Does it Matter When a Power Outage Occurs? - A Choice Experiment Study on the Willingness to Pay to Avoid Power Outages," Working Papers in Economics 155, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
  11. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
  12. Beenstock, Michael & Goldin, Ephraim & Haitovsky, Yoel, 1998. "Response bias in a conjoint analysis of power outages," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 135-156, April.
  13. Stanley W. Hamilton & Gregory M. Schwann, 1995. "Do High Voltage Electric Transmission Lines Affect Property Value?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 436-444.
  14. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop & Michael P. Welsh, 1985. "Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 188-194.
  15. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
  16. Harvey S. Rosen & Kenneth A. Small, 1979. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," NBER Working Papers 0319, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  17. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
  18. Ben McNair & Peter Abelson, 2010. "Estimating the Value of Undergrounding Electricity and Telecommunications Networks," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 43(4), pages 376-388, December.
  19. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
  20. McConnell K. E., 1995. "Consumer Surplus from Discrete Choice Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 263-270, November.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. Louviere, Jordan J & Hensher, David A, 1983. " Using Discrete Choice Models with Experimental Design Data to Forecast Consumer Demand for a Unique Cultural Event," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 348-61, December.
  24. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
  25. John M. Rose & Riccardo Scarpa, 2007. "Designs Efficiency for Non-market Valuation with Choice Modelling: How to Measure It, What to Report and Why," Working Papers in Economics 07/21, University of Waikato, Department of Economics.
  26. Boyle, Kevin J. & Morrison, Mark & Taylor, Laura O., 2004. "Why Value Estimates Generated Using Choice Modelling Exceed Contingent Valuation: Further Experimental Evidence," 2004 Conference (48th), February 11-13, 2004, Melbourne, Australia 58370, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  27. Thomas P. Holmes & Kevin J. Boyle, 2005. "Dynamic Learning and Context-Dependence in Sequential, Attribute-Based, Stated-Preference Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(1).
  28. Racevskis, Laila A. & Lupi, Frank, 2008. "Incentive Compatibility in an Attribute-Based Referendum Model," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6477, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  29. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
  30. Jacinto Braga & Chris Starmer, 2005. "Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 55-89, 09.
  31. Christine Seller & John R. Stoll & Jean-Paul Chavas, 1985. "Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: A Comparison of Nonmarket Techniques," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 156-175.
  32. Carson, Richard T & Groves, Theodore, 2010. "Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt88d8644g, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
  33. Peter F. Colwell, 1990. "Power Lines and Land Value," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 5(1), pages 117-128.
  34. McFadden, Daniel, 1980. "Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice among Products," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages S13-29, July.
  35. Loeb, Martin & Magat, Wesley A, 1979. "A Decentralized Method for Utility Regulation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(2), pages 399-404, October.
  36. Francois Des Rosiers, 2002. "Power Lines, Visual Encumbrance and House Values: A Microspatial Approach to Impact Measurement," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 23(3), pages 275-302.
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:eee:resene:v:33:y:2011:i:3:p:554-571. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)

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.