Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Choice Experiments present survey respondents with alternative options that are described by a number of attributes. Respondents are assumed to evaluate each option based on the levels of the attributes, which vary across alternatives and choice sets. The way in which attributes are described to respondents is likely to affect their choices. In this study, the impacts of two attribute level descriptions are assessed: describing non-market attributes as absolute levels or in relative terms; and using positive versus negative contextual descriptions of attribute levels. These tests were performed using data from a choice experiment on catchment management in Tasmania, Australia. Contrary to a priori expectations, including explicit information cues about relative attribute levels in the choice sets is not found to affect stated preferences. The data do reveal significant differences in value estimates when attribute levels are described as a ‘loss’, compared to a ‘presence’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ABS (2006) 2006 Census. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. Available via. http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/Census+data

  • ABS (2007) Statistics—Tasmania, 2007. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. Available via. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS

  • Ajzen I, Brown TC, Rosenthal LH (1996) Information bias in contingent valuation: effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation. J Environ Econ Manag 30(1): 43–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alpízar F, Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2001) Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Econ Issues 8(1): 83–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez-Farizo B, Hanley N, Barberan R, Lazaro A (2007) Choice modeling at the “market stall”: individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 60(4): 743–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Brouwer R, Davies H, Day BH, Deflandre A, DiFalco S, Georgiou S, Hadley D, Hutchins M, Jones AP, Kay D, Leeks G, Lewis M, Lovett AA, Neal C, Posen P, Rigby D, Turner RK (2006) Analysing the agricultural costs and non-market benefits of implementing the water framework directive. J Agr Econ 57(2): 221–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Day BH, Jones AP, Jude S (2009) Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. J Environ Econ Manag 58(1): 106–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett J, Adamowicz W (2001) Some fundamentals of environmental choice modelling. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett J, Dumsday R, Howell G, Lloyd C, Sturgess N, van Raalte L (2008) The economic value of improved environmental health in victorian rivers. Australas J Environ Manag 15(3): 138–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom JC, Stoll JC, Randall A (1990) The impact of information on environmental commodity valuation decisions. Am J Agr Econ 72(3): 614–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosworth R, Ann Cameron T, DeShazo JR (2009) Demand for environmental policies to improve health: evaluating community-level policy scenarios. J Environ Econ Manag 57(3): 293–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braga J, Starmer C (2005) Preference anomalies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environ Resour Econ 32(1): 55–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Break O’Day Council: (2007) Georges catchment and estuary project overview. Break O’Day Council, St Helens

    Google Scholar 

  • Breffle WS, Rowe RD (2002) Comparing choice question formats for evaluating natural resource tradeoffs. Land Econ 78(2): 298–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell D, Hutchinson WG, Scarpa R (2008) Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environ Resour Econ 41(3): 401–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Liljenstolpe C (2003) Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments. Ecol Econ 47(1): 95–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caussade S, Ortuzar JD, Rizzi LI, Hensher DA (2005) Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transp Res Part B Methodol 39(7): 621–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies PE, Long J, Brown M, Dunn H, Heffner D, Knight R (2005) The Tasmanian conservation of freshwater ecosystem values (CFEV) framework: developing a conservation and management system for rivers. Paper presented at the Freshwater Protected Areas Conference, Sydney, Australia, 27–28 Sept 2004

  • DeShazo JR, Fermo G (2002) Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manag 44(1): 123–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DPIW: (2005) Environmental management goals for Tasmanian surface waters. Dorset & Break O’Day municipal areas. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart

    Google Scholar 

  • DPIW: (2007) Annual waterways monitoring reports 2006: George catchment. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart

    Google Scholar 

  • Econometric Software: (2007) LIMDEP 9.0. Econometric Software Inc., Castle Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Entman RM (1993) Framing: towards a clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43(4): 51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer GW, Damodaran N, Laskey KB, Lincoln D (1987) Preferences for proxy attributes. Manag Sci 33(2): 198–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganzach Y, Karsahi N (1995) Message framing and buying behavior: a field experiment. J Bus Res 32(1): 11–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene WH, Hensher DA (2007) Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 43(5): 610–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene WH, Hensher DA, Rose J (2006) Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models. Transp Res Part B Methodol 40(1): 75–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallahan K (1999) Seven models of framing: implications for public relations. J Public Relat Res 11(3): 205–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Colombo S, Tinch D, Black A, Aftab A (2006) Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the water framework directive: are benefits transferable. Eur Rev Agr Econ 33(3): 391–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA (2006) Revealing differences in willingness to pay due to the dimensionality of stated choice designs: an initial assessment. Environ Resour Econ 34(1): 7–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA (2006) How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load. J Appl Econ 21(6): 861–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Greene WH (2003) The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30: 133–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Rose JM, Black I (2008) Interactive agency choice in automobile purchase decisions: the role of negotiation in determining equilibrium choice outcomes. J Transp Econ Pol 42(2): 269–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hess S, Rose JM, Hensher DA (2008) Asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay estimates in discrete choice models. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 44(5): 847–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz JK, McConnell KE (2002) A review of WTA/WTP studies. J Environ Econ Manag 44(3): 426–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huffman WE, Rousu M, Shogren JF, Tegene A (2007) The effects of prior beliefs and learning on consumers’ acceptance of genetically modified foods. J Econ Behav Organ 63(1): 193–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1984) Choices, values, and frames. Am Psych 39(4): 341–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Ritov I, Schkade D (1999) Economic preferences or attitude expressions?: An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. J Risk Uncertain 19(1): 203–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaye-Blake WH, Abell WL, Zellman E (2009) Respondents’ ignoring of attribute information in a choice modelling survey. Aust J Agr Resour Econ 53(4):547–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knetsch JL (2010) Values of gains and losses: reference states and choice of measure. Environ Resour Econ 46: 179–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kragt ME, Bennett J (2008) Developing a questionnaire for valuing changes in natural resource management in the George catchment, Tasmania. Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Report No. 8. Crawford School of Economics and Government, Australian National University, Canberra

  • Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68(4): 715–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kühberger A, Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Perner J (1999) The effects of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 78(3): 204–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladenburg J, Olsen SB (2008) Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: evidence from an empirical study. J Environ Econ Manag 56: 275–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster KJ (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74(2): 132–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauriola M, Russo PM, Lucidi F, Violani C, Levin IP (2005) The role of personality in positively and negatively framed risky health decisions. Pers Indiv Diff 38(1): 45–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin IP, Gaeth GJ (1988) How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. J Cons Res 15(3): 374–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin IP, Schneider SL, Gaeth GJ (1998) All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 76(2): 149–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lliff G (2002) George River Catchment: Plan for Rivercare Works for the Upper Catchment, North George and South George Rivers. St Helens, Australia

  • Lockwood M, Carberry D (1998) Stated preference surveys of remnant native vegetation conservation. Johnstone Centre Report No. 104, Johnstone Centre, Albury

  • Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Luisetti T, Bateman I, Turner K (2011) Testing the fundamental assumption of choice experiments: are values absolute or relative. Land Econ 87(2): 284–296

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniels TL (1992) Reference points, loss aversion, and contingent values for auto safety. J Risk Uncertain 5(2): 187–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munro A (2009) Bounded rationality and public policy: a perspective from behavioural economics. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • NRM North: (2008) State of the region: water quality and stream condition in northern Tasmania 2006. Northern Water Monitoring Team, Launceston

    Google Scholar 

  • Pan Z, Kosciki GM (1993) Framing analysis: an approach to discourse. Political Comm 10(1): 55–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1992) Behavioral decision research: a constructive processing perspective. A Rev Psych 43(1): 87–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poe GL, Severance-Lossin EK, Welsh MP (1994) Measuring the difference (X − Y) of simulated distributions: a convolutions approach. Am J Agr Econ 76(4): 904–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revelt D, Train K (1998) Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev Econ Stat 80(4): 647–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe J, Bennett J, Louviere J (2002) Stated values and reminders of substitute goods: testing for framing effects with choice modelling. Aust J Agr Resour Econ 46(1): 1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe J, Windle J (2005) Valuing options for reserve water in the Fitzroy Basin. Aust J Agr Resour Econ 49(1): 91–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan M, Watson V (2009) Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 18(4): 389–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samples KC, Dixon JA, Gowen MM (1986) Information disclosure and endangered species valuation. Land Econ 62(3): 306–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarpa R, Rose JM (2008) Designs efficiency for nonmarket valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Aust J Agr Resour Econ 52(3): 253–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarpa R, Willis KG, Acutt M (2007) Valuing externalities from water supply: status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments. J Environ Plan Manag 50(4): 449–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarpa R, Gilbride TJ, Campbell D, Hensher DA (2009) Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation. Eur Rev Agr Econ 36(2)

  • Schlapfer F (2008) Contingent valuation: a new perspective. Ecol Econ 64(4): 729–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapansky B, Adamowicz WL, Boxall PC (2008) Assessing information provision and respondent involvement effects on preferences. Ecol Econ 65(3): 626–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swait J, Adamowicz W (2001) The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: a latent class model of decision strategy switching. J Cons Res 28(1): 135–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swait J, Louviere J (1993) The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinational logit models. J Mark Res 30(3): 305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiene M, Scarpa R (2009) Deriving and testing efficient estimates of WTP distributions in destination choice models. Environ Resour Econ 44(3): 379–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Train KE (2000) Halton sequences for mixed logit. Paper E00-278. Institute of Business and Economics, University of California, Berkeley

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Sci 211(4481): 453–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Quart J Econ 106(4): 1039–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Manag Sci 39(10): 1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Marit E. Kragt

    Present address: School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, M089 / 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Crawford School of Economics and Government, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

    Marit E. Kragt & Jeffrey W. Bennett

Authors
  1. Marit E. Kragt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey W. Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marit E. Kragt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kragt, M.E., Bennett, J.W. Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?. Environ Resource Econ 51, 43–59 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9487-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9487-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation