Preference Uncertainty, Preference Learning, and Paired Comparison Experiments

Results from paired comparison experiments suggest that as respondents progress through a sequence of binary choices they become more consistent, apparently fine-tuning their preferences. Consistency may be indicated by the variance of the estimated valuation distribution measured by the error term in the random utility model. A significant reduction in the variance is shown to be consistent with a model of preference uncertainty allowing for preference learning. Respondents become more adept at discriminating among items as they gain experience considering and comparing them, suggesting that methods allowing for such experience may obtain more well founded values. (JEL C25, D83)

[1]  P. Moran.  On the method of paired comparisons. , 1947, Biometrika.

[2]  Joseph L. Zinnes,et al.  Theory and Methods of Scaling. , 1958 .

[3]  Patrick Suppes,et al.  Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences , 1962 .

[4]  H. A. David,et al.  The method of paired comparisons , 1966 .

[5]  L. V. Jones,et al.  The measurement and prediction of judgment and choice. , 1970 .

[6]  Jacob Marschak,et al.  Binary-Choice Constraints and Random Utility Indicators (1960) , 1974 .

[7]  N. Bockstael,et al.  The Effect of Common Sources of Regression Error on Benefit Estimates , 1987 .

[8]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1987 .

[9]  Mark D. Uncles,et al.  Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand , 1987 .

[10]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-market Goods Using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression' , 1988 .

[11]  H. A. David,et al.  The Method of Paired Comparisons (2nd ed.). , 1989 .

[12]  Charles R. Plott,et al.  Rational Individual Behavior in Markets and Social Choice Processes: the Discovered Preference Hypothesis , 1993 .

[13]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Valuing environmental resources: A constructive approach , 1993 .

[14]  L. Thurstone.  A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .

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

[16]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods , 1997 .

[17]  Hua Wang,et al.  Treatment of “Don't-Know” Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model , 1997 .

[18]  G. Fechner.  Elemente der Psychophysik , 1998 .

[19]  T. Brown,et al.  Economic Valuation by the Method of Paired Comparison, with Emphasis on Evaluation of the Transitivity Axiom , 1998 .

[20]  J. Loomis,et al.  WTA Estimates Using the Method of Paired Comparison: Tests of Robutness , 1998 .

[21]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach , 1998 .

[22]  T. Brown,et al.  Paired comparison estimates of willingness to accept versus contingent valuation estimates of willingness to pay , 1998 .

[23]  A. Rivlin,et al.  Economic Choices , 2001 .

[24]  J. R. DeShazo,et al.  Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency , 2002 .

[25]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  A primer on nonmarket valuation , 2003 .

[26]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  Multiple-Bounded Uncertainty Choice Data as Probabilistic Intentions , 2003, Land Economics.

[27]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  Multiple Good Valuation , 2003 .

[28]  Anna Alberini,et al.  Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty , 2003 .

[29]  J. List.  Does market experience eliminate market anomalies , 2003 .

[30]  K. Boyle,et al.  Dynamic Learning and Context-Dependence in Sequential, Attribute-Based, Stated-Preference Valuation Questions , 2005, Land Economics.

[31]  C. Starmer,et al.  Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis , 2005 .

[32]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness , 2008 .

[33]  Donald M. Waldman,et al.  (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/jae.984 LEARNING AND FATIGUE DURING CHOICE EXPERIMENTS: A COMPARISON OF ONLINE AND MAIL SURVEY MODES , 2022 .

[34]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  Reliability of individual valuations of public and private goods: Choice consistency, response time, and preference refinement , 2008 .

[35]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  An Enquiry into the Method of Paired Comparison: Reliability, Scaling, and Thurstone's Law of Comparative Judgment , 2012 .