Are there specific design elements of choice experiments and types of people that influence choice response certainty

Abstract The development of more realistic choice experiments has taken on board a number of suggestions in the broader hypothetical bias literature. One issue, in particular, is the increasing interest in finding ways to bridge the gap between the stated choice response and real choosing, as a way of increasing the confidence with which an individual would hypothetically purchase or use an alternative that is actually chosen in the choice experiment. In this paper we investigate the relationship between the respondent's response to a certainty question, defined on a 1-10 scale of surety, and features of the choice experiment that may have a bearing on the degree of confidence that can be placed on the stated choice, controlling for exogenous effects such as socioeconomic characteristics and attitudes to vehicle emissions. The focus on response certainty in this paper is as an external validity test. We find, using a generalised ordered logit model, compelling evidence that the number of acceptable alternatives and hence associated levels of attributes, together with the contrast of attribute levels of each designed alternative relative to an experienced status quo (or reference) alternative, play an important role in establishing certainty of response in a real market. The evidence should be taken on board in the future design of more realistic choice experiments.

[1]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments , 2010 .

[2]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay , 2010 .

[3]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Hybrid Choice Models with Logit Kernel: Applicability to Large Scale Models1 , 2005 .

[4]  Mickael Bech,et al.  Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. , 2011, Health economics.

[5]  T. Stevens,et al.  A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation , 2006 .

[6]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Modeling Ordered Choices: A Primer and Recent Developments , 2008 .

[7]  Benjamin Heydecker,et al.  A discrete choice model incorporating thresholds forperception in attribute values , 2006 .

[8]  Magnus Johannesson,et al.  Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses , 1999 .

[9]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Interrogation of responses to stated choice experiments: Is there sense in what respondents tell us? , 2011 .

[10]  Joan L. Walker,et al.  Integration of Choice and Latent Variable Models , 1999 .

[11]  John M. Rose,et al.  Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives , 2008 .

[12]  Tommy Gärling,et al.  Application of attitude theory for improved predictive accuracy of stated preference methods in travel demand analysis , 2003 .

[13]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias , 2001 .

[14]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl , 1998 .

[15]  Leif Mattsson,et al.  Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. , 1995 .

[16]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Making use of respondent reported processing information to understand attribute importance: a latent variable scaling approach , 2013 .

[17]  John M. Rose,et al.  The influence of alternative acceptability, Attribute thresholds and choice response certainty on automobile purchase preferences , 2012 .

[18]  Søren Bøye Olsen,et al.  Handling respondent uncertainty in Choice Experiments: Evaluating recoding approaches against explicit modelling of uncertainty , 2009 .

[19]  John M. Rose,et al.  Accounting for Preference and Scale Heterogeneity in Establishing Whether it Matters Who is Interviewed to Reveal Household Automobile Purchase Preferences , 2011 .

[20]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Behavioural responses to vehicle emissions charging , 2009 .

[21]  Joffre Swait,et al.  A NON-COMPENSATORY CHOICE MODEL INCORPORATING ATTRIBUTE CUTOFFS , 2001 .

[22]  John M. Rose,et al.  Stated Preference Experimental Design Strategies , 2007 .

[23]  Søren Bøye Olsen,et al.  Tough and Easy Choices: Testing the Influence of Utility Difference on Stated Certainty-in-Choice in Choice Experiments , 2011 .

[24]  Lesley Chiou,et al.  Masking Identification of Discrete Choice Models Under Simulation Methods , 2007 .