IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

The no-choice option and dual response choice designs


  • Jeff Brazell
  • Christopher Diener
  • Ekaterina Karniouchina
  • William Moore
  • Válerie Séverin
  • Pierre-Francois Uldry


Choice set designs that include a constant or no-choice option have increased efficiency, better mimic consumer choices, and allow one to model changes in market size. However, when the no-choice option is selected no information is obtained on the relative attractiveness of the available alternatives. One potential solution to this problem is to use a dual response format in which respondents first choose among a set of available alternatives in a forced-choice task and then choose among the available alternatives and a no-choice option. This paper uses a simulation to demonstrate and confirm the possible gains in efficiency of dual response over traditional choice-based conjoint tasks when there are different proportions choosing the no-choice option. Next, two choice-based conjoint analysis studies find little systematic violation of IIA with the addition/deletion of a no-choice option. Further analysis supports the hypothesis that selection of the no-choice option is more closely related to choice set attractiveness than to decision difficulty. Finally, validation evidence is presented. Our findings show that researchers can employ the dual response approach, taking advantages of the increased power of estimation, without concern for systematically biasing the resulting parameter estimates. Hence, we argue this is a valuable approach when there is the possibility of a large number of no-choices and preference heterogeneity. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Suggested Citation

  • Jeff Brazell & Christopher Diener & Ekaterina Karniouchina & William Moore & Válerie Séverin & Pierre-Francois Uldry, 2006. "The no-choice option and dual response choice designs," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 255-268, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:17:y:2006:i:4:p:255-268
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-006-7943-8

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Zsolt Sándor & Michel Wedel, 2002. "Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 455-475, February.
    2. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. " Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.
    2. Nils Wlömert & Felix Eggers, 2016. "Predicting new service adoption with conjoint analysis: external validity of BDM-based incentive-aligned and dual-response choice designs," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 195-210, March.
    3. repec:spr:rvmgts:v:11:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11846-016-0201-4 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:eee:transa:v:106:y:2017:i:c:p:440-452 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Kallas, Zein & Borrisser-Pairó, Francesc & Martínez, Beatriz & Vieira, Ceferina & Rubio, Begonia & Panella, Nuria & Gil, Marta & Linares, M. Belén & Garrido, M. Dolores & Ibañez, Miguel & M. Angels, O, 2015. "The impact of the sensory experience on scale and preference heterogeneity: The GMNL model approach to pig castration and meat quality," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202708, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Stefanie Heinzle, 2012. "Disclosure of Energy Operating Cost Information: A Silver Bullet for Overcoming the Energy-Efficiency Gap?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 43-64, March.
    7. Masiero, Lorenzo & Rose, John M., 2013. "The role of the reference alternative in the specification of asymmetric discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 83-92.
    8. repec:eee:ijrema:v:33:y:2016:i:2:p:343-356 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. repec:spr:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-018-0303-y is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Dan Marsh & Lena Mkwara & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Do Respondents’ Perceptions of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 3(9), pages 1-23, September.
    11. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ollikainen, Markku, 2013. "Valuation of environmental and societal trade-offs of renewable energy sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1148-1156.
    12. Greg Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John Howell & Peter Rossi, 2014. "Economic valuation of product features," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 421-456, December.
    13. Kallas, Zein & Maria Gil, Jose, 2011. "A Dual Response Choice Experiments (DRCE) design to assess rabbit meat preference in Catalonia: A Heteroescedatistic Extreme-Value Model," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114779, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Kallas, Zein & Gil, José María, 2015. "Do the Spanish want biodiesel? A case study in the Catalan transport sector," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 398-406.
    15. Greg M. Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John R. Howell & Peter E. Rossi, 2014. "Valuation of Patented Product Features," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(3), pages 629-663.
    16. Landmann, D. & Feil, J.-H. & Lagerkvist, C.J. & Otter, V., 2018. "Designing capacity development activities of small-scale farmers in developing countries based on discrete choice experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277738, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. repec:eee:ijrema:v:29:y:2012:i:2:p:167-180 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Cantillo, Víctor & Amaya, Johanna & Ortúzar, J. de D., 2010. "Thresholds and indifference in stated choice surveys," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 753-763, July.
    19. repec:eee:ejores:v:269:y:2018:i:3:p:1165-1179 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Ida, Takanori & Takemura, Kosuke & Sato, Masayuki, 2015. "Inner conflict between nuclear power generation and electricity rates: A Japanese case study," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 61-69.
    21. Kallas, Zein & Gil, José Maria, 2014. "Consumers' preferences towards biodiesel in the Spanish transport sector: A case study in Catalonia," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182801, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    22. Anthony Scott & Julia Witt, 2015. "Loss Aversion, Reference Dependence and Diminishing Sensitivity in Choice Experiments," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2015n16, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    23. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Markku, Ollikainen, 2015. "Ecosystem benefits from coastal habitats—A three-country choice experiment," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 15-27.
    24. Murray Rudd, 2011. "An Exploratory Analysis of Societal Preferences for Research-Driven Quality of Life Improvements in Canada," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 101(1), pages 127-153, March.
    25. repec:spr:patien:v:12:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-018-0324-6 is not listed on IDEAS


    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:kap:mktlet:v:17:y:2006:i:4:p:255-268. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Mallaigh Nolan). 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.