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

Interview versus self-completion questionnaires in discrete choice experiments

Listed author(s):
  • J. D. Snowball
  • K. G. Willis
Registered author(s):

    Since the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) panel (1993) on Contingent Valuation (CV), it has been accepted that Willingness to Pay (WTP) data should ideally be collected using only face-to-face interviews and not self-completion surveys. However, there has been little testing of the accuracy of Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) data collected using self-completion methods, which may actually produce more reliable results because of a reduction in interviewer bias and because respondents are given more time to think. This research, conducted at the South African National Arts Festival (NAF), compares the findings of face-to-face and self-completion surveys using a choice experiment eliciting the willingness of attenders to pay for various attributes of live theatre performances. Results show that attribute coefficients are consistently lower for the self-completion data than for the interview data and, for the model including interaction terms, have lower SEs for the majority of the coefficients. WTP estimates are also lower and, given ticket prices, more realistic, when using the self-completion data.

    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: 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 under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Applied Economics Letters.

    Volume (Year): 18 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 16 ()
    Pages: 1521-1525

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:taf:apeclt:v:18:y:2011:i:16:p:1521-1525
    DOI: 10.1080/13504851.2010.548770
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    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:taf:apeclt:v:18:y:2011:i:16:p:1521-1525. 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: (Michael McNulty)

    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.