IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v48y2021i3p624-664..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing the consistency of preferences in discrete choice experiments: an eye tracking study

Author

Listed:
  • Michelle S Segovia
  • Marco A Palma

Abstract

A within-subjects experiment with eye tracking was implemented to test the consistency of preferences over three repeated choice experiments. The empirical results indicate that after changing the position of the same alternatives in the choice set, participants were consistent with their choices 69 per cent of the time. Moreover, after reverting back to the identical original positions of the alternatives but randomising the order of the choice sets, individuals’ choices were consistent 67 per cent of the time. Eye tracking data revealed that subjects’ visual attention towards the product attributes was also consistent over the sequence of choices. The robustness of these results was further demonstrated by using random parameters models with flexible mixing distributions to calculate willingness-to-pay for the product attributes and compare its consistency across choice experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Michelle S Segovia & Marco A Palma, 2021. "Testing the consistency of preferences in discrete choice experiments: an eye tracking study," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 48(3), pages 624-664.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:48:y:2021:i:3:p:624-664.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jbaa024
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    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:oup:erevae:v:48:y:2021:i:3:p:624-664.. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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.