IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01463113.html

Are choice experiments reliable? Evidence from the lab

Author

Listed:
  • Stéphane Luchini

    (GREQAM - Groupement de Recherche en Économie Quantitative d'Aix-Marseille - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Verity Watson

    (Health Economics Research Unit - University of Aberdeen)

Abstract

This study investigates whether a popular stated preference method, the choice experiment (CE), reliably measures individuals' values for a good. We address this question using an induced value experiment. Our results indicate that CEs fail to elicit payoff maximizing choices. We find little evidence that increasing the salience of the choices or adding monetary incentives increase the proportion of payoff maximizing choices. This questions the increasing use of CE to value non-market goods for policy making.

Suggested Citation

  • Stéphane Luchini & Verity Watson, 2014. "Are choice experiments reliable? Evidence from the lab," Post-Print hal-01463113, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01463113
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2014.04.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Claudia Bazzani & Marco A. Palma & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2018. "On the use of flexible mixing distributions in WTP space: an induced value choice experiment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(2), pages 185-198, April.
    2. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    3. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., "undated". "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274040, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. repec:hal:journl:halshs-02136103 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Ewa Zawojska & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2020. "Moving beyond the Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiment Debate: Presentation Effects in Stated Preference," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(1), pages 1-24.
    6. 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.
    7. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stéphane Luchini & Jason F. Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 19007, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    8. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    9. Cerroni, S. & Watson, V. & Macdiarmid, J., 2018. "Preferences for healthy and environmentally sustainable food: Combining induced-value and home-grown experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277155, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Werbeck, Anna, 2024. "Stated preferences and actual choices in german health insurance," Ruhr Economic Papers 1091, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    11. Bazzani, Claudia & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Canavari, Maurizio & Danforth, Diana M., "undated". "On the Use of the BDM Mechanism in Non-Hypothetical Choice Experiments," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235904, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Toma, Mattie & Bell, Elizabeth, 2024. "Understanding and increasing policymakers’ sensitivity to program impact," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    13. Xuan Wei & Hayk Khachatryan & Alicia Rihn, 2021. "Estimating willingness-to-pay for neonicotinoid-free plants: Incorporating pro-environmental behavior in hypothetical and non-hypothetical experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-20, May.
    14. Regier, Dean A. & Sicsic, Jonathan & Watson, Verity, 2019. "Choice certainty and deliberative thinking in discrete choice experiments. A theoretical and empirical investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 235-255.
    15. Botero, Hernan & Barnes, Andrew P. & Perez, Lisset & Rios, David & Ramirez-Villegas, Julian, 2021. "The determinants of common bean variety selection and diversification in Colombia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    16. Keith Finlay & Charles Stoecker & Scott Cunningham, 2015. "Willingness-To-Accept Pharmaceutical Retail Inconvenience: Evidence from a Contingent Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-10, May.
    17. Meginnis, Keila & Burton, Michael & Chan, Ron & Rigby, Dan, 2021. "Strategic bias in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D1 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior
    • D6 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics

    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:hal:journl:hal-01463113. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.