Convergent Validity of Attribute-Based, Choice Questions in Stated-Preference Studies

The application of attribute-based choice questions is well established in the marketing literature, but there are unique aspects of the design that warrant investigation to assess their validity for economic welfare estimation. Three design issues are investigated in this paper: (1) the placement of the monetary stimulus (policy cost to respondents) in the sequence of attributes, (2) the number of policy alternatives respondents are asked to consider in choice questions (two versus three), and (3) the inclusion, versus exclusion, of a status-quo alternative in choice questions. The data used to implement these investigations are from a survey designed to estimate the value Maine residents place on a farmland conservation easement program. Tests of convergent validity indicate that the placement of the monetary stimulus, first versus last in the list of attributes, did not affect estimates of preference parameters, significant differences between questions with three versus two alternatives did occur, and the inclusion/exclusion of a status-quo alternative did not affect preference parameters.

[1]  J. Swait,et al.  The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching , 2001 .

[2]  M. Wedel,et al.  The No—Choice Alternative in Conjoint Choice Experiments , 2001 .

[3]  R. Dhar.  Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option , 1997 .

[4]  Bente Halvorsen.  Ordering effects in contingent valuation surveys , 1996 .

[5]  William S. Breffle,et al.  Comparing Choice Question Formats for Evaluating Natural Resource Tradeoffs , 2002, Land Economics.

[6]  M Ryan,et al.  Response-ordering effects: a methodological issue in conjoint analysis. , 1999, Health economics.

[7]  J. Louviere,et al.  Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation , 1998 .

[8]  L. Bumpass.  The measurement of public opinion on abortion: the effects of survey design. , 1997, Family planning perspectives.

[9]  A. Scott,et al.  Patients, Doctors and Contracts: An Application of Principal-Agent Theory to the Doctor-Patient Relationship , 1999 .

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

[11]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Incentive and informational properties of preference questions , 2007 .

[12]  D. McFadden,et al.  Specification tests for the multinomial logit model , 1984 .

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

[14]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Experimental choice analysis: Introduction and overview , 1991 .

[15]  P. Zarembka.  Frontiers in econometrics , 1973 .

[16]  R. Tourangeau,et al.  Cognitive Processes Underlying Context Effects in Attitude Measurement , 1988 .

[17]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[18]  John G. Lynch,et al.  Capturing and Creating Public Opinion in Survey Research , 1993 .

[19]  Joel Huber,et al.  Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation , 1988 .

[20]  James J. Murphy,et al.  A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation , 2003 .

[21]  R. G. Walsh,et al.  Nonmarket Value of Western Valley Ranchland Using Contingent Valuation , 1997 .

[22]  Elena G. Irwin,et al.  The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values , 2002, Land Economics.

[23]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Combining Sources of Preference Data for Modeling Complex Decision Processes , 1999 .

[24]  Thomas P. Holmes,et al.  Attribute-Based Methods , 2003 .

[25]  Jack Dowie,et al.  Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions. , 2002, Health economics.

[26]  K. Boyle,et al.  Anchoring and Adjustment in Single-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions , 1997 .

[27]  A. Lloyd.  Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate? , 2003, Health economics.

[28]  F. Norwood,et al.  Effect of Experimental Design on Choice‐Based Conjoint Valuation Estimates , 2005 .

[29]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation , 1996 .

[30]  J. Stoll,et al.  Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land , 1985, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[31]  J. Louviere,et al.  The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models , 1993 .

[32]  Cleve E. Willis,et al.  Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management , 2000 .

[33]  Peter Martinsson,et al.  Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment , 2001 .

[34]  Joan L. Walker,et al.  Extended Framework for Modeling Choice Behavior , 1999 .

[35]  Robert P. Berrens,et al.  Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis , 2004 .

[36]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Cross-task validity comparisons of stated preference choice models , 1993 .

[37]  J. M. Halstead.  Measuring the Nonmarket Value of Massachusetts Agricultural Land: A Case Study , 1984 .

[38]  Robert Kohn,et al.  Dissecting the Random Component of Utility , 2002 .

[39]  Edward G. Carmines,et al.  Reliability and Validity Assessment , 1979 .

[40]  N. Williams,et al.  Estimating Amenity Values of Urban Fringe Farmland: A Contingent Valuation Approach: Note , 1986 .

[41]  Jack M. Feldman,et al.  Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. , 1988 .

[42]  M. Ben-Akiva,et al.  Discrete choice analysis , 1989 .

[43]  P. Shackley,et al.  Do ordering effects matter in willingness-to-pay studies of health care? , 2002, Journal of health economics.

[44]  J. Krosnick,et al.  AN EVALUATION OF A COGNITIVE THEORY OF RESPONSE-ORDER EFFECTS IN SURVEY MEASUREMENT , 1987 .

[45]  Mickael Bech,et al.  Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry? , 2006, Health economics.

[46]  Delbert A. Taebel.  The Effect of Ballot Position on Electoral Success , 1975 .

[47]  Roger J. Best,et al.  Conjoint Measurement: Temporal Stability and Structural Reliability , 1979 .

[48]  F. Johnson,et al.  Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach. , 2000, Health economics.

[49]  K. Sælensminde,et al.  The Impact of Choice Inconsistencies in Stated Choice Studies , 2002 .

[50]  Emily Lancsar,et al.  Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? , 2006, Health economics.

[51]  Joel Huber,et al.  The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs , 1996 .

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

[53]  John A. List,et al.  What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? , 2001 .