IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/upf/upfgen/705.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Merino

Abstract

The aim of this paper is twofold: firstly, to carry out a theoretical review of the most recent stated preference techniques used for eliciting consumers preferences and, secondly, to compare the empirical results of two dierent stated preference discrete choice approaches. They dier in the measurement scale for the dependent variable and, therefore, in the estimation method, despite both using a multinomial logit. One of the approaches uses a complete ranking of full-profiles (contingent ranking), that is, individuals must rank a set of alternatives from the most to the least preferred, and the other uses a first-choice rule in which individuals must select the most preferred option from a choice set (choice experiment). From the results we realize how important the measurement scale for the dependent variable becomes and, to what extent, procedure invariance is satisfied.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Economics Working Papers 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    • Handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econ-papers.upf.edu/papers/705.pdf
    File Function: Whole Paper
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Mandy Ryan & Jenny Hughes, 1997. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women's Preferences for Miscarriage Management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 261-273, May.
    3. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    4. Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
    5. Anna Merino, 2003. "Demand for pharmaceutical drugs: A choice modelling experiment," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 704, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    6. Anna Merino, 2003. "Demand for pharmaceutical drugs: A choice modelling experiment," Economics Working Papers 704, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    7. Harry Telser & Peter Zweifel, 2002. "Measuring willingness‐to‐pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 129-139, March.
    8. Alan Diener & Bernie O'Brien & Amiram Gafni, 1998. "Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 313-326, June.
    9. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    10. Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Madeleine King & Jordan Louviere & Rosalie Viney & Angela Yeoh, 2002. "Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 457-465, July.
    11. Jan Abel Olsen & Richard D. Smith, 2001. "Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness‐to‐pay’ in health and health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 39-52, January.
    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. Taneja, Garima & Pal, Barun Deb & Joshi, Pramod Kumar & Aggarwal, Pramod & Tyagi, N.K., 2014. "Farmers’ preferences for climate-smart agriculture an assessment in the Indo-Gangetic plain:," IFPRI discussion papers 1337, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Ilja Neustadt & Peter Zweifel, 2010. "Is the Welfare State Sustainable? Experimental Evidence on Citizens’ Preferences for Redistribution," SOI - Working Papers 1003, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    3. De Menezes, Antonio Gomes & Vieira, J. C., 2008. "Willingness to pay for airline services attributes: evidence from a stated preferences choice game," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 39, pages 1-13.
    4. Villano, Renato & Chang, Hui-Shung (Christie) & Kewa, John & Irving, Donald, 2016. "Factors Affecting Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Good Quality Sweetpotato in Papua New Guinea," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 24, April.
    5. Nikolina Dukić Samaržija, 2019. "Determining the Marginal Willingness to Pay for the Cervical Cancer Screening Program in Croatia: A Best-Worst Scaling Approach," Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 41(4), pages 433-447, December.
    6. Thijs Schoot & Milena Pavlova & Elka Atanasova & Wim Groot, 2017. "Preferences of Bulgarian consumers for quality, access and price attributes of healthcare services—result of a discrete choice experiment," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 47-71, January.
    7. Nikolina Dukic Samarzija & Andrea Arbula Blecich & Luka Samarzija, 2018. "The Paradigm Of Patient-Centered Care In The Public Health Decision-Making," Economic Thought and Practice, Department of Economics and Business, University of Dubrovnik, vol. 27(2), pages 503-516, december.
    8. Ilja Neustadt, 2011. "Do Religious Beliefs Explain Preferences for Income Redistribution? Experimental Evidence," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 57(4), pages 623-652, December.
    9. Pfarr Christian & Ulrich Volker, 2011. "Discrete-Choice-Experimente zur Ermittlung der Präferenzen für Umverteilung," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 62(3), pages 232-262, December.
    10. Garima Taneja & Barun Deb Pal & Pramod K. Joshi & Pramod K. Aggarwal & N. K. Tyagi, 2014. "Farmers’ Preferences for Climate-Smart Agriculture: An Assessment in the Indo-Gangetic Plain," Working Papers id:5806, eSocialSciences.
    11. Kennedy Otieno, Pambo, 2013. "Analysis of Consumer Awareness and Preferences for Fortified Sugar in Kenya," Research Theses 243455, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    12. António Menezes & José Vieira, 2006. "Willingness to Pay for Airline Services Attributes: Microeconometric Evidence from a Stated Preference Discrete Choice Model," EcoMod2006 272100063, EcoMod.
    13. Hee-Jong Yang & Seul-Ye Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2017. "The Environmental Costs of Photovoltaic Power Plants in South Korea: A Choice Experiment Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-13, September.
    14. Wang, Ning & Tang, Linhao & Pan, Huizhong, 2017. "Effectiveness of policy incentives on electric vehicle acceptance in China: A discrete choice analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 210-218.
    15. Neustadt, Ilja & Zweifel, Peter, 2018. "Redistribution in Whose Favor? Preferences with Regard to Nationality and Type of Beneficiaries," MPRA Paper 119465, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. repec:pra:mprapa:91766 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Fitsum Dechasa & Feyera Senbeta & Dawit Diriba Guta, 2021. "Economic value of wetlands services in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(1), pages 29-53, January.
    18. Carolina González & Nancy Johnson & Matin Qaim, 2009. "Consumer Acceptance of Second‐Generation GM Foods: The Case of Biofortified Cassava in the North‐east of Brazil," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 604-624, September.
    19. repec:fpr:export:1337 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Carías Vega , Dora & Alpízar, Francisco, 2011. "Choice Experiments in Enviromental Impact Assessment: The Toro 3 Hydroelectric Project and the Recreo Verde Tourist Center in Costa Rica," RFF Working Paper Series dp-11-04-efd, Resources for the Future.
    21. Neustadt, Ilja & Zweifel, Peter, 2011. "Income redistribution: how to divide the pie?," MPRA Paper 35427, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    22. Rahel Renata Tanujaya & Chul-Yong Lee & JongRoul Woo & Sung-Yoon Huh & Min-Kyu Lee, 2020. "Quantifying Public Preferences for Community-Based Renewable Energy Projects in South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    2. Milena Pavlova & Wim Groot & Godefridus Merode, 2005. "An Application of Rating Conjoint Analysis to Study the Importance of Quality-, Access- and Price-attributes to Health Care Consumers," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 267-286, September.
    3. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    4. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628, August.
    5. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    6. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    7. Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Age and Choice in Health Insurance," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(1), pages 27-40, January.
    8. van Beek, Krijn W. H. & Koopmans, Carl C. & van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1997. "Shopping at the labour market: A real tale of fiction," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 295-317, February.
    9. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    11. Harry Telser & Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 283-298, October.
    12. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    13. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free‐riding and vehicle neutrality in a health‐related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306, March.
    14. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    15. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2007. "Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders' preferences for multiple forest values," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 516-526, January.
    16. Panos Pashardes & Nicoletta Pashourtidou, 2011. "Consumer welfare from publicly supplemented private goods: age and income effects on demand for health care," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 865-885, December.
    17. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Gopindra Sivakumar Nair & Sebastian Astroza & Chandra R. Bhat & Sara Khoeini & Ram M. Pendyala, 2018. "An application of a rank ordered probit modeling approach to understanding level of interest in autonomous vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1623-1637, November.
    19. Trine Bergmo & Silje Wangberg, 2007. "Patients’ willingness to pay for electronic communication with their general practitioner," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(2), pages 105-110, June.
    20. Markus König & Christian Pfarr & Peter Zweifel, 2014. "Mutual Altruism: Evidence from Alzheimer Patients and Their Spouse Caregivers," Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, in: Preference Measurement in Health, volume 24, pages 141-160, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    21. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Stated preferences; contingent ranking; choice experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • C42 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Survey Methods
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:upf:upfgen:705. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.econ.upf.edu/ .

    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.