This paper discusses the estimation of choice models on pivot-style stated choice data sets that include a reference alternative that corresponds to a recent trip by a respondent. With the potentially high levels of inertia observed in many such data sets, the questionnaire for the current survey gave respondents a secondary choice between the purely hypothetical alternatives when they gave preference to the reference alternative. The aim of this paper was to investigate appropriate ways to deal with such a dual-response data set at the modeling stage. The analysis shows only small differences in scale and willingness-to-pay estimates between the primary and secondary choices, suggesting that especially in the presence of large amounts of inertia in primary choices, secondary responses may provide analysts with useful information on sensitivities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DharR.Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option.Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, 1997, pp. 215–231.
2.
AdamowiczW., and BoxallP.. Future Directions of Stated Choice Methods for Environment Valuation. Prepared for Choice Experiments: A New Approach to Environmental Valuation, London, 2001.
3.
BennettJ., and BlameyR.. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation.Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, 2001.
4.
BatemanI., CarsonR. T., DayB., HanemannM., HanleyN., HettT., Jones-LeeM., LoomesG., MouratoS., OzdemirogluE., PearceD. W., SugdenR., and SwansonJ.. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. In association with the DTLR and DEFRA, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, 2003.
5.
LouviereJ. J., and WoodworthG.. Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data.Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20, 1983, pp. 350–367.
6.
BatsellR., and LouviereJ. J.. Experimental Analysis of Choice.Marketing Letters, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1991, pp. 199–214.
7.
CarsonR., LouviereJ. J., AndersonD., ArabieP., BunchD., HensherD. A., JohnsonR., KuhfeldW., SteinbergD., SwaitJ., TimmermansH., and WileyJ.. Experimental Analysis of Choice.Marketing Letters, Vol. 5, 1994, pp. 351–367.
8.
LouviereJ. J., HensherD. A., and SwaitJ. D.. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2000.
9.
AndersonD. A., and WileyJ. B.. Efficient Choice Set Designs for Estimating Available Cross-Effects Models.Marketing Letters, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1992, pp. 357–370.
10.
KontoleonA., and YabeM.. Assessing the Impacts of Alternative ‘Opt Out’ Formats in Choice Experiment Studies: Consumer Preferences for Genetically Modified Content and Production Information in Food.Journal of Agriculture Policy and Research, Vol. 5, 2003, pp. 1–43.
11.
DharR., and SimonsonI.. The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice.Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2003, pp. 146–160.
12.
TverskyA., and ShafirE.. Choice Under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision.Psychological Science, Vol. 6, 1992, pp. 358–361.
13.
HensherD. A., and GreeneW. H.. The Mixed Logit Model: The State of Practice.Transportation, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2003, pp. 133–176.
14.
TrainK., and WilsonW.. Estimation on Stated-Preference Experiments Constructed from Revealed Preference Choices.Transportation Research B, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2008, pp. 191–203.
15.
BrazellJ. D., DienerC. G., KarniouchinaE., MooreW. L., SeverinV., and UldryP. F.. The No-Choice Option and Dual Response Choice Designs.Marketing Letters, Vol. 17, 2006, pp. 255–268.
16.
HuberJ., and ZwerinaK.. The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs.Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33, 1996, pp. 307–317.
17.
TonerJ. P., ClarkS. D., Grant-MullerS. M., and FowkesA. S.. Anything You Can Do, We Can Do Better: A Provocative Introduction to a New Approach to Stated Preference Design.Proc., 8th World Conference on Transport Research, Vol. 3, Antwerp, Belgium, 1999, pp. 107–120.
18.
SándorZ., and WedelM.. Designing Conjoint Choice Experiments Using Managers’ Prior Beliefs.Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, 2001, pp. 430–444.
19.
SándorZ., and WedelM.. Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models.Marketing Science, Vol. 21, 2002, pp. 455–475.
20.
SándorZ., and WedelM.. Heterogeneous Conjoint Choice Designs.Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 42, 2005, pp. 210–218.
21.
BliemerM. C. J., and RoseJ. M.. Designing Stated Choice Experiments: State-of-the-Art. Presented at 11th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Kyoto, Japan, 2006.
22.
KanninenB. J.Optimal Design for Multinomial Choice Experiments.Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39, 2002, pp. 214–217.
23.
KesselsR., GoosP., and VandebroekM.. A Comparison of Criteria to Design Efficient Choice Experiments.Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43, 2006, pp. 409–419.
24.
RoseJ. M., and BliemerM. C. J.. Designing Efficient Data for Stated Choice Experiments. Presented at 11th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Kyoto, Japan, 2006.
25.
FerriniS., and ScarpaR. S.. Designs with a Priori Information for Non-market Valuation with Choice Experiments: A Monte Carlo Study.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 53, 2007, pp. 342–363.
26.
RoseJ. M., BliemerM. C. J., HensherD. A., and CollinsA. C.. Designing Efficient Stated Choice Experiments in the Presence of Reference Alternatives.Transportation Research B, Vol. 42, No. 4, 2008, pp. 395–406.
27.
HessS., RoseJ. M., and PolakJ. W.. Nontrading, Lexicographic, and Inconsistent Behavior in Stated-Preference Choice Data. Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
28.
CirilloC., DailyA., and LindveldK.. Eliminating Bias Due to the Repeated Measurements Problem in SP Data.Proc., 24th European Transport Forum: Stated Preference Modeling Techniques (OrtúzarJ. de D., ed.), London, 2000.
29.
CaussadeS., OrtúzarJ. de D., RizziL. I., and HensherD. A.. Assessing the Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choice Experiment Estimates.Transportation Research B, Vol. 39, No. 7, 2005, pp. 621–640.
30.
ChintakayalaP. K., HessS., RoseJ. M., and WardmanM.. Effects of Stated Choice Design Dimensions on Estimates.International Choice Modelling Conference, March 30–April 1, 2009, Yorkshire, United Kingdom.
31.
HensherD. A.Accounting for Stated Choice Design Dimensionality in Willingness to Pay for Travel Time Savings.Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2004, pp. 425–446.
32.
HensherD. A.How Do Respondents Process Stated Choice Experiments? Attribute Consideration Under Varying Information Load.Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 21, 2006, pp. 861–878.
33.
HensherD. A.Revealing Differences in Behavioural Response Due to the Dimensionality of Stated Choice Designs: An Initial Assessment.Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2006, pp. 7–44.
34.
RoseJ. M., HensherD. A., CaussadeS., OrtuzarJ. de D., and Rong-ChangJ.. Identifying Differences in Preferences Due to Dimensionality in Stated Choice Experiments: A Cross Cultural Analysis.Journal of Transport Geography, 2009, forthcoming.
