IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v13y2020i1d10.1007_s40271-019-00385-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opening the ‘Black Box’: An Overview of Methods to Investigate the Decision-Making Process in Choice-Based Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Dan Rigby

    (The University of Manchester)

  • Caroline Vass

    (The University of Manchester)

  • Katherine Payne

    (The University of Manchester)

Abstract

The desire to understand the preferences of patients, healthcare professionals and the public continues to grow. Health valuation studies, often in the form of discrete choice experiments, a choice based survey approach, proliferate as a result. A variety of methods of pre-choice process analysis have been developed to investigate how and why people make their decisions in such experiments and surveys. These techniques have been developed to investigate how people acquire and process information and make choices. These techniques offer the potential to test and improve theories of choice and/or associated empirical models. This paper provides an overview of such methods, with the focus on their use in stated choice-based healthcare studies. The methods reviewed are eye tracking, mouse tracing, brain imaging, deliberation time analysis and think aloud. For each method, we summarise the rationale, implementation, type of results generated and associated challenges, along with a discussion of possible future developments.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan Rigby & Caroline Vass & Katherine Payne, 2020. "Opening the ‘Black Box’: An Overview of Methods to Investigate the Decision-Making Process in Choice-Based Surveys," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(1), pages 31-41, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:13:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-019-00385-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-019-00385-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-019-00385-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-019-00385-8?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trey Malone & Jayson L. Lusk, 2019. "Releasing The Trap: A Method To Reduce Inattention Bias In Survey Data With Application To U.S. Beer Taxes," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 584-599, January.
    2. Danny Campbell & W. Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 401-417, November.
    3. Chavez, Daniel & Palma, Marco & Collart, Alba J., 2016. "Eye Tracking to Model Attribute Attendance," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 230011, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    4. Arieli, Amos & Ben-Ami, Yaniv & Rubinstein, Ariel, 2009. "Fairness Motivations and Procedures of Choice between Lotteries as Revealed through Eye Movements," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275720, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
    5. Erdem, Seda & Campbell, Danny & Thompson, Carl, 2014. "Elimination and selection by aspects in health choice experiments: Prioritising health service innovations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 10-22.
    6. Kelvin Balcombe & Iain Fraser & Eugene McSorley, 2015. "Visual Attention and Attribute Attendance in Multi‐Attribute Choice Experiments," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(3), pages 447-467, April.
    7. Whittington, Dale & Smith, V. Kerry & Okorafor, Apia & Okore, Augustine & Liu, Jin Long & McPhail, Alexander, 1992. "Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: A developing country application," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 205-225, May.
    8. Caroline Vass & Dan Rigby & Katherine Payne, 2019. "“I Was Trying to Do the Maths”: Exploring the Impact of Risk Communication in Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(1), pages 113-123, February.
    9. Joseph Cook & Marc Jeuland & Brian Maskery & Dale Whittington, 2012. "Giving Stated Preference Respondents “Time to Think”: Results From Four Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 473-496, April.
    10. Joseph Cook & Dale Whittington & Do Gia Canh & F. Reed Johnson & Andrew Nyamete, 2007. "Reliability Of Stated Preferences For Cholera And Typhoid Vaccines With Time To Think In Hue, Vietnam," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 100-114, January.
    11. Bateman, Ian J. & Willis, Kenneth G. (ed.), 2001. "Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU , and developing Countries," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199248919.
    12. Alicia Rihn & Hayk Khachatryan & Benjamin Campbell & Charles Hall & Bridget Behe, 2016. "Consumer preferences for organic production methods and origin promotions on ornamental plants: evidence from eye-tracking experiments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(6), pages 599-608, November.
    13. Erdem, Seda & McCarthy, Tony, 2016. "The effect of front-of-pack nutrition labelling formats on consumers’ food choices and decision-making: merging discrete choice experiment with an eye tracking experiment," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235864, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson & Vikki Entwistle, 2009. "Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 321-336, March.
    15. Park, Jong-Won & Hastak, Manoj, 1994. "Memory-Based Product Judgments: Effects of Involvement at Encoding and Retrieval," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(3), pages 534-547, December.
    16. Joseph Cook, 2007. "Reliability Of Stated Preferences For Cholera And Typhoid Vaccines With Time To Think In Hue, Vietnam," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp200701s1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jan 2007.
    17. Sebastian Hinde & Eldon Spackman, 2015. "Bidirectional Citation Searching to Completion: An Exploration of Literature Searching Methods," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 5-11, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    2. Alison Pearce & Mark Harrison & Verity Watson & Deborah J. Street & Kirsten Howard & Nick Bansback & Stirling Bryan, 2021. "Respondent Understanding in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Scoping Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 17-53, January.
    3. Christine Michaels-Igbokwe & Gillian R. Currie & Bryanne L. Kennedy & Karen V. MacDonald & Deborah A. Marshall, 2021. "Methods for Conducting Stated Preference Research with Children and Adolescents in Health: A Scoping Review of the Application of Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(6), pages 741-758, November.
    4. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    5. Kaiying Wang & Chris Barr & Richard Norman & Stacey George & Craig Whitehead & Julie Ratcliffe, 2021. "Using Eye-Tracking Technology with Older People in Memory Clinics to Investigate the Impact of Mild Cognitive Impairment on Choices for EQ-5D-5L Health States Preferences," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 111-121, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tobias Börger & Joseph Cook, 2016. "Giving respondents “time to think” reduces response randomness in repeated discrete choice tasks," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2016-13, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    2. Tobias Börger, 2016. "Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 389-413, October.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    4. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    5. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2018. "The effect of attribute-alternative matrix displays on preferences and processing strategies," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 113-132.
    6. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Krupnick, Alan & Lampi, Elina & Löfgren, Åsa & Qin, Ping & Sterner, Thomas, 2013. "A fair share: Burden-sharing preferences in the United States and China," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-17.
    7. Fredrik Carlsson, 2010. "Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 167-177, June.
    8. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    9. Joseph Cook & Marc Jeuland & Brian Maskery & Dale Whittington, 2012. "Giving Stated Preference Respondents “Time to Think”: Results From Four Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 473-496, April.
    10. Erlend Dancke Sandorf & Danny Campbell, 2019. "Accommodating satisficing behaviour in stated choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(1), pages 133-162.
    11. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh, 2016. "How are you? How's it going? What's up? What's happening? Nudging people to tell us how they really are," Working Papers in Economics 649, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    12. Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Does attribute order influence attribute-information processing in discrete choice experiments?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    13. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Krupnick, Alan & Lampi, Elina & Löfgren, Åsa & Qin, Ping & Sterner, Thomas, 2013. "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—A multiple country test of an oath script," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 105-121.
    14. Sebastian Heidenreich & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan & Euan Phimister, 2018. "Decision heuristic or preference? Attribute non‐attendance in discrete choice problems," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 157-171, January.
    15. Whittington, Dale & Sur, Dipika & Cook, Joseph & Chatterjee, Susmita & Maskery, Brian & Lahiri, Malay & Poulos, Christine & Boral, Srabani & Nyamete, Andrew & Deen, Jacqueline & Ochiai, Leon & Bhattac, 2009. "Rethinking Cholera and Typhoid Vaccination Policies for the Poor: Private Demand in Kolkata, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 399-409, February.
    16. Hayk Khachatryan & Alicia Rihn & Ben Campbell & Bridget Behe & Charles Hall, 2018. "How do consumer perceptions of “local†production benefits influence their visual attention to state marketing programs?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 390-406, March.
    17. Semra Ozdemir, 2015. "Improving the Validity of Stated-Preference Data in Health Research: The Potential of the Time-to-Think Approach," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(3), pages 247-255, June.
    18. Zhang, Xumin & Khachatryan, Hayk & Gao, Zhifeng, 2020. "Using Mixed Logit Based Models to Control Attribute Nonattendance in Choice Experiments," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304547, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    20. Shapansky, Bradford & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C., 2008. "Assessing information provision and respondent involvement effects on preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 626-635, April.

    More about this item

    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:spr:patien:v:13:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-019-00385-8. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.