Split-Sample Tests of "No Opinion" Responses in an Attribute-Based Choice Model
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.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.