Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comment on “Revealing Differences in Willingness to Pay Due to the Dimensionality of Stated Choice Designs: An Initial Assessment”

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

Abstract

There are very few studies that quantify the interactions and tradeoffs between statistical and cognitive efficiency in designing stated-choice studies. While a conceptual framework for evaluating cognitive strategies would be desirable, Hensher adopts a strictly empirical approach in this experiment. The success of the study must be evaluated in light of his aggregating attributes rather than controlling the number of attributes, asymmetry in the narrow-range and wide-range attributes, and lack of orthogonality between the number of attributes and number of alternatives. Nevertheless, Hensher challenges uncritical acceptance of any given set of design features and correctly insists that we confirm our experience with rigorous, quantitative experiments.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • T. Arentze A. Borgers R. DelMistro H. Timmermans (2003) ArticleTitle‘Transport Stated Choice Responses: Effects of Task Complexity, Presentation Format and Literacy’ Transport Research E 39 229–244 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S1366-5545(02)00047-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Ben-Akiva T. Morikawa F. Shiroishi (1992) ArticleTitle‘Analysis of the Reliability of Preference Ranking Data’ Journal of Business Research 24 149–164 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0148-2963(92)90058-J

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. Blamey J. Bennett J. Louviere M. Morrison J. Rolfe (2000) ArticleTitle‘A Test of Policy Labels in Environmental Choice Modeling Studies’ Ecological Economics 32 269–286 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00101-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K. J. Boyle T. P. Holmes M. F. Teisl B. Roe (2001) ArticleTitle‘Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats’ American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83 IssueID2 441–454 Occurrence Handle10.1111/0002-9092.00168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Bryan L. Gold R. Sheldon M. Buxton (2000) ArticleTitle‘Preference Measurement Using Conjoint Methods: An Empirical Investigation of Reliability’ Health Economics 9 385–395 Occurrence Handle10.1002/1099-1050(200007)9:5<385::AID-HEC533>3.0.CO;2-W

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. Y. Darmon D. Rouziès (1991) ArticleTitle‘Internal Validity Assessment of Conjoint Estimated Attribute Importance Weights’ Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science 19 315–322

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Kuhfeld (2004) Marketing Research Methods in SAS, TS-694 SAS Institute Carey, North Carolina

    Google Scholar 

  • J. J. Louviere (2001) ArticleTitle‘What If Consumer Experiments Impact Variances as Well as Means: Response Variability as a Behavioral Phenomenon’ Journal of Consumer Research 28 506–511 Occurrence Handle10.1086/323739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. J. Louviere D. J. Street L. Burgess (2003) A 20+ Years Retrospective on Choice Experiments Wind Yoram E. Green Paul (Eds) Marketing Research and Modeling: Progress and Prospects Kluwer Academic Publishers New York

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Louviere D. Street R. Carson A. Ainslie J. DeShazo T. Cameron D. Hensher R. Kohn T. Marley (2002) ArticleTitle‘Dissecting the Random Component of Utility’ Marketing Letters 13 177–193 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1020258402210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Louviere D. Hensher J. Swait (2002) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Maddala K. A. Phillips F. R. Johnson (2003) ArticleTitle‘An Experiment on Simplifying Conjoint Analysis Exercises for Measuring HIV Testing Preferences’ Health Economics 12 IssueID12 1035–1047 Occurrence Handle10.1002/hec.798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • I. Simonson A. Tversky (1992) ArticleTitle‘Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion’ Journal of Marketing Research 29 IssueID4 281–296 Occurrence Handle10.2307/3172740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Slovic (1995) ArticleTitle‘The Construction of Preference’ American Psychologist 50 364–371 Occurrence Handle10.1037/0003-066X.50.5.364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. -B. E. M. Steenkamp D. R. Wittink (1994) ArticleTitle‘The Metric Quality of Full-Profile Judgments and the Number-of-Attribute-Levels Effect in Conjoint Analysis’ International Journal of Research in Marketing 11 275–286 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0167-8116(94)90006-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Train, K. and G. Sonnier (2004), ‘Mixed Logit with Bounded Distributions of Partworths, Forthcoming’, in A. Alberini and R. Scarpa eds., Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics. Kluwer Academic Publisher

  • D. Wand L. Jiuqun H. Timmermans (2001) ArticleTitle‘Reducing Respondent Burden, Information Processing Effort, and Incomprehensibility in Stated Preference Surveys: Principles and Properties of Paired Conjoint Analysis’ Transportation Research Record 1768 71–78

    Google Scholar 

  • White, P. J., R. D. Johnson and J. J. Louviere (1998), The Effect of Attribute Range and Variance on Weighted Estimates. Department of Marketing, The University of Sydney (unpublished paper)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, P.O. Box 12194, 27709-2194, NC, USA

    F. Reed Johnson

Authors
  1. F. Reed Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Reed Johnson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, F.R. Comment on “Revealing Differences in Willingness to Pay Due to the Dimensionality of Stated Choice Designs: An Initial Assessment”. Environ Resource Econ 34, 45–50 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-3783-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-3783-x

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation