IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v106y2023ics2214804323000757.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An empirical comparison of conjoint and best-worst scaling case III methods

Author

Listed:
  • Cheng, Haotian
  • Zhang, Tong
  • Lambert, Dayton M.
  • Feuz, Ryan

Abstract

The Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) case III method, also called the BWS ‘multi-profile case.’ has been widely used to characterize survey respondent preferences for market goods. The BWS method is similar to conjoint analysis methods in that respondents select from a set of hypothetical item profiles with different attribute levels. Unlike conjoint methods, which allow respondents to select their best/most preferred profile, the BWS case III method asks respondents to select ‘best’ and ‘worst’ profiles in each choice set. This study compares consumer willingness to pay (WTP) estimates from conjoint and BWS case III survey formats. Data on consumer preferences for single-use eating-ware products made from biobased materials were collected. Results suggest that for the most preferred attribute levels, WTPs estimates are similar in magnitude and consistent for signs across methods. For least-preferred attributes, WTP estimates from the conjoint method are higher than those of the BWS method. However, the BWS WTP estimates have smaller confidence intervals.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheng, Haotian & Zhang, Tong & Lambert, Dayton M. & Feuz, Ryan, 2023. "An empirical comparison of conjoint and best-worst scaling case III methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:106:y:2023:i:c:s2214804323000757
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2023.102049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804323000757
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2023.102049?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Best-worst survey; Conjoint survey; Biobased product;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness

    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:eee:soceco:v:106:y:2023:i:c:s2214804323000757. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.