, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 583–607 | Cite as

It’s not that I don’t care, I just don’t care very much: confounding between attribute non-attendance and taste heterogeneity

  • Stephane HessEmail author
  • Amanda Stathopoulos
  • Danny Campbell
  • Vikki O’Neill
  • Sebastian Caussade


With the growing interest in the topic of attribute non-attendance, there is now widespread use of latent class (LC) structures aimed at capturing such behaviour, across a number of different fields. Specifically, these studies rely on a confirmatory LC model, using two separate values for each coefficient, one of which is fixed to zero while the other is estimated, and then use the obtained class probabilities as an indication of the degree of attribute non-attendance. In the present paper, we argue that this approach is in fact misguided, and that the results are likely to be affected by confounding with regular taste heterogeneity. We contrast the confirmatory model with an exploratory LC structure in which the values in both classes are estimated. We also put forward a combined latent class mixed logit model (LC-MMNL) which allows jointly for attribute non-attendance and for continuous taste heterogeneity. Across three separate case studies, the exploratory LC model clearly rejects the confirmatory LC approach and suggests that rates of non-attendance may be much lower than what is suggested by the standard model, or even zero. The combined LC-MMNL model similarly produces significant improvements in model fit, along with substantial reductions in the implied rate of attribute non-attendance, in some cases even eliminating the phenomena across the sample population. Our results thus call for a reappraisal of the large body of recent work that has implied high rates of attribute non-attendance for some attributes. Finally, we also highlight a number of general issues with attribute non-attendance, in particular relating to the computation of willingness to pay measures.


Choice modelling Stated choice Attribute non-attendance Attribute ignoring Taste heterogeneity 


  1. Alemu, M.H., Mørbak, M.R., Olsen, S.B., Jensen, C.L.: Attending to the reasons for attribute non-attendance in choice experiments. Paper presented at the second international choice modelling conference, ICMC, Oulton Hall, Leeds (2011)Google Scholar
  2. Bujosa, A., Riera, A., Hicks, R.: Combining discrete and continuous representation of preference heterogeneity: a latent class approach. Environ. Resour. Econ. 47(4), 477–493 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cameron, T., DeShazo, J.: Differential attention to attributes in utility-theoretic choice models. J. Choice Model. 3(3), 73–115 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, D., Hensher, D., Scarpa, R.: Cost thresholds, cut-offs and sensitivities in stated choice analysis: identification and implications. Resour. Energy Econ. 34(3), 396–411 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, D., Hensher, D.A., Scarpa, R.: Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 54(8), 1061–1076 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, D., Lorimer, V., Aravena, C., Hutchinson, W.G.: Attribute processing in environmental choice analysis: implications for willingness to pay. In: 84th Annual Conference, 29–31 March 2010, p. 91718. Agricultural Economics Society, Edinburgh, Scotland (2010)Google Scholar
  7. Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., Lampi, E.: Dealing with Ignored attributes in choice experiments on valuation of Sweden’s environmental quality objectives. Environ. Resour. Econ. 47(1), 65–89 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins, A., Rose, J., Hensher, D.: The random parameters attribute non-attendance model. Paper presented at the 13th international conference on travel behaviour research. TBR, Toronto (2012)Google Scholar
  9. Doornik, J.A.: Ox: An Object-Oriented Matrix Language. Timberlake Consultants Press, London (2001)Google Scholar
  10. Greene, W.H., Hensher, D.A.: Revealing additional dimensions of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model. Applie 45(14), 1897–1902 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. Hensher, D.A.: Attribute processing, heuristics and preference construction in choice analysis. In: Hess, S., Daly, A.J. (Eds.), State-of Art and State-of Practice in Choice Modelling: Proceedings from the Inaugural International Choice Modelling Conference, Chap. 3, pp. 35–70. Emerald, Bingley, UK (2010)Google Scholar
  12. Hensher, D.A., Greene, W.H.: Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: a latent class specification. Empir. Econ. 39(4), 413–426 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H.: The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 32(3), 203–222 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H.: Inferring attribute non-attendance from stated choice data: implications for willingness to pay estimates and a warning for stated choice experiment design. Transportation 39(2), 235–245 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hess, S., Hensher, D.: Making use of respondent reported processing information to understand attribute importance: a latent variable scaling approach. Transportation, in press. (2012)Google Scholar
  16. Hess, S., Hensher, D.A.: Using conditioning on observed choices to retrieve individual-specific attribute processing strategies. Transp. Res. B 44(6), 781–790 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hess, S., Rose, J.M.: A latent class approach to recognising respondents’ information processing strategies in SP studies. Paper presented at the Oslo workshop on valuation methods in transport planning, OWVM, Oslo (2007)Google Scholar
  18. Hess, S., Train, K., Polak, J.W.: On the use of a modified Latin hypercube sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a mixed logit model for vehicle choice. Transp. Res. B 40(2), 147–163 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hole, A.R.: A discrete choice model with endogenous attribute attendance. Econ. Lett. 110(3), 203–205 (2011a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hole, A.R.: Attribute non-attendance in patients’ choice of general practitioner appointment. Paper presented at the second international choice modelling conference, ICMC, Oulton Hall, Leeds (2011b)Google Scholar
  21. Puckett, S.M., Hensher, D.A.: The role of attribute processing strategies in estimating the preferences of road freight stakeholders. Transp. Res. E 44(3), 379–395 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rose, J.M., Hensher, D.A., Greene, W.H., Washington, S.: Attribute exclusion strategies in airline choice: accounting for exogenous information on decision maker processing strategies in models of discrete choice. Transportmetrica, forthcoming (2011)Google Scholar
  23. Scarpa, R., Gilbride, T., Campbell, D., Hensher, D.A.: Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 36(2), 151–174 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Scarpa, R., Thiene, M., Hensher, D.A.: Monitoring choice task attribute attendance in nonmarket valuation of multiple park management services: does it matter? Land Econ. 86(4), 817–839 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephane Hess
    • 1
    Email author
  • Amanda Stathopoulos
    • 2
  • Danny Campbell
    • 3
  • Vikki O’Neill
    • 4
  • Sebastian Caussade
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Transport and Mobility Laboratory (TRANSP-OR), School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering (ENAC)Ecole Polytechnique Fédèrale de Lausanne (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Gibson Institute for Land, Food and EnvironmentQueens University BelfastBelfastUK
  4. 4.Medical Research Council Biostatistics UnitInstitute of Public HealthCambridgeUK
  5. 5.LAN AirlinesCaussade CoudeuVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations