Conceptual Relations Between Expanded Rank Data and Models of the Unexpanded Rank Data

Louviere et al. (2008, J. of Choice Modelling, 1, 126–163) present two main empirical examples in which a respondent rank orders the options in various choice sets by repeated best, then worst, choice. They expand the ranking data to various “implied” choices in subsets and fit the expanded data in various ways; they do not present models of the original rank data, except in one case (that of the rank ordered logit). We build on that work by constructing models of the original rank data that are consistent with the “weights” implied by the data expansions. This results in two classes of models: the first includes the reversible ranking model and has useful “score” properties; the second includes the rank ordered logit model and has natural “process” interpretations. We summarize known and new results on relations between the two classes of models and present fits of the models to the data of a case study concerning micro-generation of electricity using solar panels – that is, where individual households generate electricity using a renewable energy technology.

[1]  K. Y. Lam,et al.  Ranking Models in Conjoint Analysis , 2010 .

[2]  John M. Rose,et al.  Estimation of stochastic scale with best-worst data , 2013 .

[3]  P. J. Huber.  Pairwise Comparison and Ranking: Optimum Properties of the Row Sum Procedure , 1963 .

[4]  S. Satchell,et al.  Retirement Investor Risk Tolerance in Tranquil and Crisis Periods: Experimental Survey Evidence , 2010 .

[5]  Jeroen K. Vermunt,et al.  Removing the Scale Factor Confound in Multinomial Logit Choice Models to Obtain Better Estimates of Preference 1 , 2022 .

[6]  Kar Yin Lam,et al.  Estimating Independent Locally Shifted Random Utility Models for Ranking Data , 2011, Multivariate behavioral research.

[7]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Modeling the choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information , 2008 .

[8]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Keep It Simple: Easy Ways To Estimate Choice Models For Single Consumers , 2010 .

[9]  Donald G. Saari,et al.  Disposing dictators, demystifying voting paradoxes , 2008, Math. Comput. Model..

[10]  Eugene Galanter,et al.  Handbook of mathematical psychology: I. , 1963 .

[11]  José Luis García-Lapresta,et al.  Characterizing best–worst voting systems in the scoring context , 2010, Soc. Choice Welf..

[12]  Eldar Shafir,et al.  Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[13]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Exploring Scale Effects of Best/Worst Rank Ordered Choice Data to Estimate Benefits of Tourism in Alpine Grazing Commons , 2011 .

[14]  J. Louviere,et al.  Determining the Appropriate Response to Evidence of Public Concern: The Case of Food Safety , 1992 .

[15]  Denzil G. Fiebig,et al.  The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity , 2010, Mark. Sci..

[16]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Exploring scale effects of best/worst rank ordered choice data to estimate visitors' benefits from alpine transhumance , 2009 .

[17]  A. A. J. Marley,et al.  Some Probabilistic Models of Simple Choice and Ranking , 1968 .

[18]  J. Louviere,et al.  Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choices , 2005 .

[19]  A. A. J. Marley,et al.  Models of best–worst choice and ranking among multiattribute options (profiles) , 2012 .

[20]  J. Louviere,et al.  A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling , 2008 .

[21]  A. Pekec,et al.  The repeated insertion model for rankings: Missing link between two subset choice models , 2004 .