IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v85y2009i2p348-362.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Split-Sample Tests of "No Opinion" Responses in an Attribute-Based Choice Model

Author

Listed:
  • Eli P. Fenichel
  • Frank Lupi
  • John P. Hoehn
  • Michael D. Kaplowitz

Abstract

Researchers using questionnaires to elicit preferences must decide whether to include response options that allow respondents to express "no opinion." Using a split-sample design, we explore the implications of alternative answer formats including and not including no-opinion responses in an attribute-based choice experiment. The results indicate that using multiple no-opinion responses may enable researchers to differentiate between respondents who choose no-opinion options due to satisficing and those expressing utility indifference. Existing literature suggests no-opinion responses may be treated as "no," but our results show treating no-opinion responses as "no" can yield substantially disparate preference estimates.

Suggested Citation

  • Eli P. Fenichel & Frank Lupi & John P. Hoehn & Michael D. Kaplowitz, 2009. "Split-Sample Tests of "No Opinion" Responses in an Attribute-Based Choice Model," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 348-362.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:85:y:2009:i:2:p:348-362
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/85/2/348
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

    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. Alberini, Anna & Boyle, Kevin & Welsh, Michael, 2003. "Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 40-62, January.
    2. Champ, Patricia A. & Alberini, Anna & Correas, Ignacio, 2005. "Using contingent valuation to value a noxious weeds control program: the effects of including an unsure response category," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 47-60, October.
    3. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, May.
    4. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    5. Steven B. Caudill & Peter A. Groothuis, 2005. "Modeling Hidden Alternatives in Random Utility Models: An Application to "Don’t Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    6. Vossler, Christian A. & Poe, Gregory L., 2005. "Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty: a comment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 197-200, January.
    7. Mary F. Evans & Nicholas E. Flores & Kevin J. Boyle, 2003. "Multiple-Bounded Uncertainty Choice Data as Probabilistic Intentions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 549-560.
    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. Bahamonde-Birke, Francisco J. & Navarro, Isidora & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2017. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 13-23.
    2. Taro Ohdoko & Satoru Komatsu & Shinji Kaneko, 2013. "Residential preferences for stable electricity supply and a reduction in air pollution risk: a benefit transfer study using choice modeling in China," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 15(3), pages 309-328, July.
    3. Hwang, Joonghyun & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Interis, Matthew G., 2014. "Consequentiality and Opt-out Responses in Stated Preference Surveys," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(03), pages 471-488, December.
    4. Taro Ohdoko & Kentaro Yoshida, 2012. "Public preferences for forest ecosystem management in Japan with emphasis on species diversity," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(2), pages 147-169, April.
    5. Kelvin Balcombe & Iain Fraser, 2009. "A General Treatment of Non-Response Data From Choice Experiments Using Logit Models," Studies in Economics 0916, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    6. Dekker, Thijs & Hess, Stephane & Brouwer, Roy & Hofkes, Marjan, 2016. "Decision uncertainty in multi-attribute stated preference studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 57-73.
    7. Komarek, Timothy M. & Lupi, Frank & Kaplowitz, Michael D., 2011. "Valuing energy policy attributes for environmental management: Choice experiment evidence from a research institution," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5105-5115, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:uwp:landec:v:85:y:2009:i:2:p:348-362. 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: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.