IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v20y2011i3p273-286.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Mickael Bech
  • Trine Kjaer
  • Jørgen Lauridsen

Abstract

Optimising the design of discrete choice experiments (DCE) involves maximising not only the statistical efficiency, but also how the nature and complexity of the experiment itself affects model parameters and variance. The present paper contributes by investigating the impact of the number of DCE choice sets presented to each respondent on response rate, self‐reported choice certainty, perceived choice difficulty, willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) estimates, and response variance. A sample of 1053 respondents was exposed to 5, 9 or 17 choice sets in a DCE eliciting preferences for dental services. Our results showed no differences in response rates and no systematic differences in the respondents' self‐reported perception of the uncertainty of their DCE answers. There were some differences in WTP estimates suggesting that estimated preferences are to some extent context‐dependent, but no differences in standard deviations for WTP estimates or goodness‐of‐fit statistics. Respondents exposed to 17 choice sets had somewhat higher response variance compared to those exposed to 5 choice sets, indicating that cognitive burden may increase with the number of choice sets beyond a certain threshold. Overall, our results suggest that respondents are capable of managing multiple choice sets – in this case 17 choice sets – without problems. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Mickael Bech & Trine Kjaer & Jørgen Lauridsen, 2011. "Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 273-286, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:20:y:2011:i:3:p:273-286
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1587
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1587
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Hensher, 2006. "Revealing Differences in Willingness to Pay due to the Dimensionality of Stated Choice Designs: An Initial Assessment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 7-44, May.
    2. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    3. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    4. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    5. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 135-148, June.
    6. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    7. David A. Hensher, 2004. "Identifying the Influence of Stated Choice Design Dimensionality on Willingness to Pay for Travel Time Savings," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 38(3), pages 425-446, September.
    8. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 141-167, November.
    9. Heiner, Ronald A, 1983. "The Origin of Predictable Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 560-595, September.
    10. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2006. "How much is too much? - An investigation of the effect of the number of choice sets, starting point and the choice of bid vectors in choice experiments," Working Papers in Economics 191, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    11. Marisa J. Mazzotta & James J. Opaluch, 1995. "Decision Making When Choices Are Complex: A Test of Heiner's Hypothesis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 500-515.
    12. Weenig, Mieneke W. H. & Maarleveld, Marleen, 2002. "The impact of time constraint on information search strategies in complex choice tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 689-702, December.
    13. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811, August.
    14. Johnson, F. Reed & Desvousges, William H., 1997. "Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 79-99, September.
    15. Ryan, Mandy & Wordsworth, Sarah, 2000. "Sensitivity of Willingness to Pay Estimates to the Level of Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 47(5), pages 504-524, November.
    16. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    17. Ruby, Melissa C. & Johnson, F. Reed & Mathews, Kristy E., 1998. "Assessing Opt-Out Formats For Discrete-Choice Stated Preferences: Results From A Saltwater Angling Survey," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20807, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Hanley, Nick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Wright, Robert E., 2005. "Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 227-234, October.
    19. Ulla Slothuus Skjoldborg & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2003. "Conjoint analysis. The cost variable: an Achilles' heel?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(6), pages 479-491, June.
    20. Tara Maddala & Kathryn A. Phillips & F. Reed Johnson, 2003. "An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1035-1047, December.
    21. Hensher, David A. & Stopher, Peter R. & Louviere, Jordan J., 2001. "An exploratory analysis of the effect of numbers of choice sets in designed choice experiments: an airline choice application," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 7(6), pages 373-379.
    22. Stirling Bryan & Martin Buxton & Robert Sheldon & Alison Grant, 1998. "Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(7), pages 595-603, November.
    23. Louviere, Jordan J, 2001. "What If Consumer Experiments Impact Variances as Well as Means? Response Variability as a Behavioral Phenomenon," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(3), pages 506-511, December.
    24. Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in health care," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 383-398, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:wly:hlthec:v:20:y:2011:i:3:p:273-286. 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: (Wiley Content Delivery). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.